Hacker News Reader

Comment by kodablah | Hacker News Reader

Question from an outsider: Is it really necessary to have a state-level bill for this as opposed to county-level? Is the diversity of the localities in the state small enough where such a measure can be decided so centrally? (I admit I haven't read it or saw if it had conditions on population).

View on HN

They have been failing to do anything at the local level for years, because it's easier for a small group of angry wealthy homeowners to get their way in local processes.

So they were looking to do something statewide, to put everyone on a level playing field.

You’d be surprised at the diverse makeup of “do nothing” advocacy groups. Some don’t want the makeup of the neighborhood to change. Some don’t want a building style to be different. Some want their particular disenfranchised group to be represented before any permits are granted. There are many people up and down the spectrum who make up different shades of the NIMBY groups.

For example, look at the reaction to Uber building a new HQ in Oakland, which they ultimately abandoned[1]

> Residents were not as thrilled. After watching the rapid gentrification and rising real estate costs in neighboring San Francisco, many feared Uber would accelerate similar trends in Oakland. The area was already struggling to hold onto its own history as a diverse, working-class area known for activism while absorbing a wave of wealthy new residents.

[1] https://money.cnn.com/2017/08/25/technology/business/uber-oa...

https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/voxs-the-weeds/e/66321406

Boston University's Katherine Levine Einstein explains the dysfunctional politics behind America's housing crisis.

https://www.amazon.com/Neighborhood-Defenders-Participatory-...

"Since the collapse of the housing market in 2008, demand for housing has consistently outpaced supply in many US communities. The failure to construct sufficient housing - especially affordable housing - in desirable communities and neighborhoods comes with significant social, economic, and environmental costs. This book examines how local participatory land use institutions amplify the power of entrenched interests and privileged homeowners. The book draws on sweeping data to examine the dominance of land use politics by 'neighborhood defenders' - individuals who oppose new housing projects far more strongly than their broader communities and who are likely to be privileged on a variety of dimensions. "

> Question from an outsider: Is it really necessary to have a state-level bill for this as opposed to county-level?

County-level decisions on zoning has essentially outlawed most new housing except for single family housing which led to this crisis.

In the US the State has legal authority over land use and can supersede local jurisdictions at any time.

Every smaller entity in the state has abjectly failed to create conditions under which housing can be built. That's why the state needs to set some minimal rules.

I personally think mandatory over-the-counter zoning approval for fourplexes statewide is clearly desirable. People who want to sell their rat-infested shacks[1] for $4 million dollars, in the same year that the shack had an assessed value of $65k, obviously prefer if local zoning regimes continue to protect them from competition.

1: https://socketsite.com/archives/2020/01/dilapidated-postcard...

This is not entirely true. There are a handful of decent actors (Emeryville and Redwood City come to mind in the Bay Area) but they're absolutely swamped by bad actors like San Francisco, Palo Alto, Cupertino, etc which have massive undersupply of housing relative to the number of jobs they have.

I don't know that we should let cities like Redwood City off the hook. Between 2000 and 2013 their housing stock expanded by only 2%, whereas the historical pace is 1% per year, or 15% over 14 years. Their history of inaction should not be ignored.

From 1990 to 2007 housing units increased by 9%, outpacing the San Mateo county which grew at 7% over the same period. The growth in the decade after 2000 did slow, that was the period immediately after a major contraction in 2001 of the tech industry

Jurisdiction matters far more than most people realize. If we had state level environmental protection laws, Missouri might be more than happy to let St Louis save money by dumping their trash into the Mississippi River where it becomes Louisiana's problem instead. Thankfully the EPA has their jurisdiction set appropriately.

Housing and Land Use definitely need wider jurisdictions. State level would be nice, but at the very least they need metro regional jurisdiction. When a city like San Jose or San Francisco doesn't build enough housing, the affordability and traffic effects ripple far throughout the region. Right now, land use planners don't have to care about the effects they have on neighboring cities, but with wider jurisdictions they absolutely would have to take those concerns into account.

This reminds me of the overly pedantic Wikipedia synopsis of “Louisiana Woman, Mississippi Man”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Woman,_Mississippi...

>The song details the travails of a couple geographically separated by the Mississippi river. They emphatically pledge that their love is too great to let the wide distance of the river keep them separated. Overcoming alligators and bouts of distraction (the man is often sidetracked by spending time fishing) the man pledges to somehow cross the river while the woman claims she'll go so far as to swim the distance (1 mile the song claims). This is an especially bold proclamation on her part as in 1973, arsenic, E. coli and fecal coliform bacteria levels in the Mississippi river far exceeded modern WHO recommendations by over 2000% (similar to current levels in the Ganges river).

Well, one of the main "reasons" this bill was killed was about what you're asking. From the LA Times[0]:

"Senate Bill 50, which would have allowed construction of mid-rise apartment complexes near transit and job centers and fourplexes in most single-family neighborhoods throughout California, was opposed by state senators who said the measure took too much power away from local governments and failed to sufficiently address low-income housing needs."

So it seems there are people in the CA state senate who would rather see this done at county or city levels. However, sometimes these projects hinge on state support in the form of taxes/allocation or if there is existing state-level legislation that requires amendment or repeal... I think. I'm not a gov buff.

Overall, though, I think the prevailing thought is that the cities/counties that some say "need" affordable/denser housing would never on their own vote for new legislation. Palo Alto is named in this article[0] where a resident claims building higher density dwellings is less important than curbing corporate expansion. Quote:

"Greg Schmid, a 78-year-old retired economist, said the region should slow the expansion of large companies. Young, highly paid tech employees are overwhelming Palo Alto, he said, and adding to traffic congestion. The situation, he said, only works for the companies’ benefit and drives out families who earn less and could otherwise live in Palo Alto.

“The aggressive expansion of big business does not have any sensitivity to the need for a sustainable community,” Schmid said."

I think it's a fair point.

0. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-01-29/high-pro...

1. https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-apartm...

All governments want to point fingers. The municipalities get away with murder because of state laws that define "urban growth boundary" regions which essentially state that there cannot be any new urban growth where there are not currently urban areas.

Predictably, the municipalities behave as an oligopoly because they know that people can no longer move just outside city limits, which is what people used to do when cities were behaving badly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com