Hacker News Reader

Comment by aeternus | Hacker News Reader

Is housing "going wrong" simply because it is expensive? Maybe it is overall a good thing that tech companies are now expanding into cities outside the bay area due to high housing costs.

At least housing prices are transparent to those thinking about moving in to the bay area, allowing them to make an informed decision. High traffic, insufficient public transit capacity, and over-capacity public services are less transparent. If we build more housing, do we just push problems elsewhere?

How do we determine the optimal amount of new housing?

View on HN

Here's an idea we can adopt from literally every other aspect of American society: let the market work. We venerate the free market in all matters except housing, where we've erected a complex system of legal protections for incumbent landlords. The solution to high housing prices is more supply but it is illegal to build housing almost anywhere in the state of California. In SF it is illegal to build a duplex on 90% of the lots. Why? That just exists to enrich incumbents.

  it is illegal to build housing almost anywhere in the state of California.

No, it is legal almost everywhere without adjacent neighbors. Most land is unincorporated anyway.

I would argue housing reaching the current prices is not good for the overall economy because it creates unreasonable pressure on people who aren't in the tech industry and still have a reason to live in the Bay Area. First, this makes it unreasonably difficult to stay in the region you grew up in unless you get into the top end of the local income brackets. Second, it makes it unreasonably difficult for all kinds of important and necessary, but lower paid, workers to live in the area. A city of nothing but high-end tech workers, with no teachers, police, firefighters, etc. would not be a very nice place to live.

As far as the "optimal amount of new housing," why not just match the number of new households moving into a region? That seems like a good place to start.

> do we just push problems elsewhere?

Not necessarily. I'd love to live closer to the Bay; if I could get in walking or biking range of CalTrain I could eliminate much or all of my 40 minute highway commute — thus reducing the congestion on the highway. But it would cost me ~$12k/yr. Similarly, if San Mateo had built adequate housing, 70k people might have shorter commutes, requiring less use of roads, transit systems, etc.

Personally, I am also massively for improvements to the various transit systems. If it were easily possible, I'd love to have CalTrain have grade-separation, level-boarding, electric locomotives, and ideally 4 tracks the whole way instead of the 2 they have, to promote passing and ease recovery during issues. We might get the EMUs someday, but I won't be around to see it. The downtown SF transit center finally reopened, I think, but it was a 8? month setback, not to mention it is way over budget. Also, the HOV lanes would be a lot more enticing if there weren't so much traffic in them, and there easily could have been had CA not hadn't out so many HOV stickers. There are SUVs getting stickered that get equivalent gas mileage to my '97. Also, enforcement.

> I'd love to have CalTrain have grade-separation, level-boarding, electric locomotives, and ideally 4 tracks the whole way instead of the 2 they have, to promote passing and ease recovery during issues.

You can get by with 3 tracks. Metra's busy BNSF line is a 3-track mainline, and they manage to launch 21 outgoing trains in the 125 minutes between 3:57 and 6:02. In addition to the ~80ish commuter trains, there's also another ~20 daily Amtrak and freight trains along the same stretch of rail.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com