Hacker News Reader

Comment by wanderfowl | Hacker News Reader

In other news, $2100+ for a small unit is viewed as 'affordable' for grad students to UC Berkeley administrators. I know there's a rent crisis out that neck of the woods, but that's some quality lack of perspective.

View on HN

It’s interesting that the contractor had to pay a $500k fee to Berkeley for an affordable housing trust. While I applaud the spirit of such a thing, it seems like the last thing you want to do in a housing crisis is make building more expensive. Perhaps if the contractor didn’t have to pay such a high fee just to build the place, they could offer better prices to the tenants.

Can anyone comment on the work done by that housing trust?

The article says it was given "in lieu of providing affordable units on site". So, sounds like it was a penalty of sorts?

That's ridiculous. Even in Amsterdam student housing is ~450 for single occupants, and the tuition is a lot cheaper as well.

At $2180 it is probably better to just move into your office or lab and sleep there.

The best way to deal with these idiot prices is to rent a regular house a bit off the beaten path and split the rent with a couple of mates.

don't know about berkeley specifically, but some towns have laws against more than a set number of unrelated people living together.

Interesting. Amsterdam actually has a scheme that promotes this ('woongroep') for the express purpose of accommodating students.

In America, all it takes is a developer not making their money back (i.e. not wanting to be a “risk-taker” anymore) and these sorts of laws magically disappear.

Indeed, however, the number is usually very reasonable, usually 5+, its not gonna stop a grad student from saving money on rent.

Though the court case that upheld these laws as constitutional, Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, the zoning law was extreme at limiting only two unrelated persons - which is extreme.

Reasonable to you, but others may think 20+ is fine. I’m not sure what the law is even trying to protect, or why it matters.

It's zoning ordinances and like any zoning ordinance its aimed at controlling or maintaining the character of the neighborhood, preventing frat houses and group homes in certain neighborhoods, etc. If parking for one family is expected and 8 students take up the whole block, etc. It's limited to unrelated persons because "family status" is a protected class under housing law.

Different houses on the same street can be zoned differently. My house is zoned "single family" but two houses down is zoned "boarding house."

I expect that most grad students don't have enough office or lab space to unroll a sleeping bag.

It’s illegal to sleep in an office. That legislation, like many others, was put in place to protect renters and workers but now ends up hurting them instead

why can't we write laws that are conditional, where we explain the intent of the law, and then the law can be ignored when the conditions aren't met

Without judging the merits of this particular law, it's because conditions will be abused by the people who have the strongest incentive to game them.

Laws are like code in this way: simplicity is not always easy, or possible, given the constraints, but complexity has significant downsides.

i mean if you say so. the supreme court does it, and it's not like they're some special breed of superhumans or something.

You are mixing two concepts here, perhaps unintentionally. The supreme court has a standards document against which it evaluates the laws (the constitution, whether it is state (SCOC) or country (SCOTUS)). I have not read a decision where they evaluate "what the legislature 'meant'" when they make their rulings, although they do sometimes comment on that.

The Supreme Court absolutely interprets the meaning of federal law passed by the legislature. Whether they do it by appeal to authorial intent or something else is a matter of jurisprudential philosophy.

For an example of talking about what the legislators intended, see King v. Burwell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_v._Burwell

Our two main political parties constantly fight to appoint their preferred candidate to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court were just following some apolitical procedure of interpretation, none of that would be necessary.

"some apolitical procedure of interpretation"

I'm down. But who gets to decide what's an apolitical procedure of interpretation? And what does that even look like?

I mean that's kind of what a law is. It stipulates things for a restricted set of circumstances. Should laws be continually refined to better define the circumstances? Of course. But if you rule by loophole you have created a sieve of a boat for a social structure.

oh, well, i wouldn't want that. so maybe not ignore the law, but what about just writing in the intent anyway, wouldn't that help with leniency?

Laws are supposed to be written in such a way as to communicate their intent. It's already there, it's just in terse, technical language. The problem with spelling out intent is it creates a huge attack surface to get a law thrown out or circumvented. It is sort of like trying to program using natural language. People understand better but it functions worse.

The way we fight this in programming is comments and documentation. Perhaps we need something similar for laws? I see the Federalist Papers mentioned quite often in constitutional law; are there other bodies of debate and paper that provide similar justification around other laws? There might also be room for "non-binding" clauses when writing the law.

Depending on the governing body, there is a process of comment and redaction before a law is adopted which is recorded and can be used to make a case. It serves such a purpose.

The jury system might have had this power in the past, before plea deals et cetera

Even then, wouldn't it have been more about case law defining what could be be feasibly prosecuted rather than refining what the law actually says?

If so, it's better, nut still not ideal. It results in information asymmetry for those that don't have a law degree or experience with the system, or can't afford to hire someone who can. That is, law enforcement can use the letter of the law to take actions that aren't enforceable if challenged, but it still requires a challenge be mounted.

>It’s illegal to sleep in an office. That legislation, like many others, was put in place to protect renters and workers

how did it protect workers/renters?

It didn’t.

That’s just what it was “created for”.

In other words, that was the rhetoric the council used to clear their conscience while helping their developer friends fill vacancies. It makes sense if you don’t think about it.

It eliminated a common form of worker abuse.

Huh, somebody should tell the Silicon Valley tech firms that. Dirty lawbreakers with their nap pods!

Where is it illegal to sleep at the office?

In this place, is living in you car (and showering at the gym) also illegal?

Off the beaten path in the Bay Area means... what, these days? Stockton? That area is a huge mess in terms of housing prices and NIMBYism.

If you are fine with roommates, there are plenty of sub 1k options in and around the area. El Cerrito and Richmond aren't too far away and generally cheaper than Berkeley.

Exactly. Even in decent areas of Oakland you can find sub 1k rent with a roommate. Currently live in an apartment that's a 5 minute walk away from a BART station in Oakland and pay 1800/month for a 1 bedroom that I split. Takes me 35 minutes to get to work in the SF Financial District.

While housing is very expensive here (especially if you have family), there are definitely ways to find cheap housing.

Anecdotally I know people who are renting rooms out of their homes in San Leandro/Hayward for $750/month.

$2100/month is literally more than my partner’s pre-tax stipend as a grad student at UC Berkeley.

Something something student loans, something something increased future earning power, something something growth based economy.

Ah, the joys of the modern higher learning establishments.

That's the sad reality of bay area housing in 2018. However, if they keep building enough units like these, prices should eventually become less insane.

Not in our lifetimes. Any American not retired or who doesn’t own a home most likely wants to move to the Bay Area, and most likely because there are jobs. The only reason they don’t is the rent rates.

Housing by market value is a losing proposition.

That is a pretty pretentious attitude about the bay area. Which is pretty much the primary reason I would never want to live there.

I'll take a guess that the vast majority of that demographic doesn't want to live there also.

> Any American not retired or who doesn’t own a home most likely wants to move to the Bay Area

Huh? Is this supposed to be serious? I know plenty of Americans who don't own a home and aren't retired. No more than a few percent of whom want to move to the Bay Area.

Isn't net migration out of the Bay Area?

https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/Bay-A...

I don't

While strictly better than a two story or a one story single family home I don't think that they'd be sufficient for solving the bay area housing issue.

I share 1BR for $2000 about 2 miles from this location (away from campus). It has a great yard but is old and has rats/squirrels in the walls. Rent is crazy here.

You have vermin?

Is there not a pest control service about?

Good luck

The rats have been contained to the walls thus far, and pest control comes periodically but it can be hard to lock down an old house. Such is life.

Ever considered (a) cat(s)? If deployed correctly, they deliver those that they don't like the taste of to your doorstep, albeit often very mutilated (think with (part (!)) of the head missing).

That's a great idea. We live on the second floor, so the cat wouldn't have access to the outside directly, which is complicated. The other issue is the lovely vizsla that lives downstairs - she is scared of cats. But I'd love to get a cat or dog when my life is 10% more stable.

> I share 1BR for $2000

You literally share a bedroom with someone you're not in a relationship with?

No, I’m in a relationship with them. But the quarters still feel tight sometimes.

pretty much all dorm rooms have single bedrooms for multiple people (sometimes as many as 4).

When I was a student I shared a two bedroom apartment with three other guys- two per room.

That's bizarre - I've never seen adults asked to share rooms before outside of the military.

How does anyone maintain a relationship when you're in the same room as other people?

I believe most dorm rooms are like this for first year students across the US. Where I went to college, it was 2 to a room but some opted for privates. It was kind of odd to do a private suite - living with someone in a dorm room is part of th first year college experience, at least in the US.

I've heard of people who go on to share their room later in college and even into adult life. You do what you have to do. Almost all those cases are temporary anyways.

It gets weird, obviously.

It's extremely normal for students living in dorms (and frats) in the US--especially for the first couple of years of undergrad. (It's certainly less common--though hardly unheard of--for grad students.)

Literally every freshman dorm in the US has this arrangement, not uncommon, not bizarre, it's even considered part of the "college experience."

You do that in situations where that's all you can afford, like when you are a student.

My sister spent a year with a volunteer organization in her mid 20s, their living stipend was very small, so everyone lived "group home style" with 2 to a bedroom. In her house they even had someone sleeping in the landing area at the top of the stairs. They actually rented a fancy luxury apartment but ended up being cheap because the rent was split seven ways.

I've maintained a relationship during the time both myself and my partner lived in dorms, you (tactfully) make arrangements with your roommate and work around each other's schedules. You've never heard of a doorsock? We didn't use a doorsock, we duct taped the door locked if there was even a chance of a roommate coming home so they didn't walk in on us.

> How does anyone maintain a relationship when you're in the same room as other people?

You take it outside? Why do you have to maintain your relationship out of your room?

> You take it outside?

But take it outside... where? Where do you have to go when you share a bedroom with other people?

> Why do you have to maintain your relationship out of your room?

You don't. But you don't have a private bedroom either. So where does that leave?

Maybe your partner has a single room. Or, as others have mentioned, you make arrangements with roommates to stay out of the room for a bit--and maybe someone stays quietly overnight and the roommate tactfully avoids paying attention.

Trust me. Roommates are very common in US undergrad housing and students manage to indulge in, um, romantic behavior just fine. If there's a willing participant of the opposite (or same) sex, life will find a way.

Right. It just doesn't seem something an adult in a relationship should really have to do.

I didn't want (and didn't have) even housemates after school. Maybe it's a cultural thing (don't really know the norms in other countries, see you went to school in the UK), but having roommates through at least part of your time at US residential colleges is almost obligatory. And, as others have noted, it's often seen as part of the experience of transitioning to college.

Go on a walk? Take them to dinner?

The problem isn't dating, it's sex. The US doesn't really have love hotels.

…not all relationships need to include sex?

“Relationship” implies “sexual relationship,” otherwise you would just say “friend” and bedrooms would be irrelevant.

> But take it outside... where?

Deserted stairwells, vehicles, closets, rooftops, basements, elevator-equipment rooms are better than nothing.

Ask your favorite search engine about [sock doorknob].

The fact that I was a lab assistant meant that I had a key to the roof of the science building...

Also many students in the US have cars.

With plenty of favors from your roommate to be repaid in beer at a later date.

Usually sharing a 1BR means the living room is converted into a bedroom, or similar arrangement.

This was the normal case with most college students in the U.S. Dormitory rooms when I was in university (1980s) were typically a single room with two twin beds, two desks, and maybe a private bathroom, but often a bath shared with another room, or sometimes a large common bath for the whole floor. At my school, they were all same-sex dorms, but at other schools that was beginning to change. I was fortunate enough to have good roommates, but it was a struggle for other people I knew. This was an accepted part of college/university life. Single-occupancy rooms were rare and expensive. Some students lived in off-campus apartments (flats) or rental houses, but even in those situation it was not uncommon to similarly double-up in bedrooms.

Today, on-campus housing is often much nicer than what was available in my day, but it's also more expensive, contributing to the rising cost of higher-education in the United States. The education I received would not have been affordable to me then at today's prices, even accounting for inflation. Also, I'm grateful for the friendships I made with my roommates. We in the United States now live such isolated lives, I am actually glad I was forced to live with someone else, even with all the difficulties, during those four years of my life.

Exactly, the cost of the rental ($2180) for a single person for a 310 square foot apartment overshadowed the modular/technical aspect of the story for me. If it was 800 square feet or something like that I could understand but these are tiny.

Berkeley hasn't built a damn thing since Gerald Ford was President, while the population has increased a lot, mostly through longevity rather than the oft-blamed migration. Going rate for a normal sized studio apartment is about $4000/mo.

Berkeley's population has actually been flat or falling for most of the period since 1970. In the 1970 census there were 116,700 people living there. In 2010 there were 112,580. Many of the intervening years were barely above 100k.

This is what happens when you don't build any new housing and median household sizes continue their decades long decline.

Yes but Berkeley is not in deep orbit, it is central to the 7-million-person Bay Area. The population has doubled in the time since Berkeley decided to freeze itself in amber.

True. While stipends vary from school to school, they don't really seem to vary according to regional cost of living. You're probably maxing out at 30k/year whether you're in Boston or Cleveland.

When housing costs in SF are 3-4K for a single, it's actually quite reasonable.

The article expressly says these units are not considered affordable.

it's insulting to have this called affordable

FTA: "In lieu of providing affordable units on site..."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com