Hacker News Reader

Comment by aeternus | Hacker News Reader

For homeowners and landlords in SF, voting for more housing is counter to their rational self-interest. It drives down their home prices in many ways: simple supply + demand, obstructed views, increased traffic, school overcrowding.

Until we align incentives, why would homeowners or prospective homeowners vote for increased housing?

View on HN

Actually this may not be true. The home owners own the land thr homes are on, so by that definition, if you can build lots of housing on the same surface area, the land would appreciate

>if you can build lots of housing on the same surface area, the land would appreciate

Optimally, however due to our property tax system, owners are taxed on any improvements which increases investment risk and provides a strong disincentive. Furthermore the city makes it difficult to build higher and often requires concessions like low-income units along with higher-density improvements.

You’re right about incentives. How about offering homeowners something for their trouble - e.g. if a neighborhood votes to rezone for higher density, all existing homeowners get a yearly rebate to offset some portion of their property tax. I guarantee most people value cash in their pocket now more than some nebulous property value at an undisclosed time in the future.

I’m all for incentives but you also don’t want to further eviscerate the middle class by slowly turning them from owners of houses to renters in skyrises.

They can by all means be owners in skyrises.

A skyrise is vastly more expensive both to construct and because of the demand to be at the top.

Why does it matter if the top is expensive? There can be 60+ floors all at different price points as well as a commercial space on the ground floor.

Are you willfully ignoring just how expensive high rises are to make your point? You can easily pay several million dollars for a coffin on the 3rd floor in new york. I don't want to live in a world like that.

I’m curious how other cities handle this. It seems like homeowners have far too much power in this situation, and are able to vote in their own self interest to the detriment of everyone else.

I guess it’s a politics problem more than anything. How do we take away their influence? Genuinely curious if anyone knows more about this and how this might be done.

Owners actually have fewer rights than average, in the sense that it is residents who vote, and many owners can't even vote in SF. Also, you still only have one vote even if you own 100 units. Yes, owners lobby, but in my opinion residents in general resist change because it will often erase elements they want to see preserved due to the city's historical character. There is no right or wrong in that debate since it is a personal taste/priorities issue. And further crowding affects everyone. Very few will vote for it, as time has shown.

Basically its going to require an earthquake before land becomes available

You should ask the red states and red cities. Generally speaking, they don't have these egregious nimbys. Houston even with 2 MIL population, and fast growing, still keeps housing prices low, even after a hurricane!!!

They bought their home in a city. No one in a city should expect the community/buildings to stagnate. That is counterintuitive to how a city operates.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com