Hacker News Reader

Comment by alasdair_ | Hacker News Reader

>California is a perfect example of what happens when you let environmentalists handle housing policy, the poor suffer because environmentalism is classism in disguise in these social contexts.

Most of the environmentalists that I know are very much in favor of increasing housing density and reducing commute time in ICE vehicles. Current housing policy does neither of these things.

View on HN

Most of the environmentalists that I know are very much in favor of increasing housing density as long as it isn't in their neighborhood.

I don't think that's unique to environmentalists, turns out a big subset of everyone is selfish like that.

Selfish is the wrong word I think, people are myopic about density and assume its inevitably a negative. A number of cities have shown that's not the case.

It's me. Turn my neighborhood into Shibuya. That'd be amazing.

The fact that cultured Americans love Paris without taking any of the lessons of Paris (insanely dense city) never ceases to amuse me in the Bay Area.

Paris is shaped like a snail and concentric circles of density and affluence with the inner most circle being most affluent.

Paris also has a stellar and reliable public transport system and is very walkable. Bay Area wants the density (and property taxes inflow) but don’t want to invest in infrastructure and public transport.

> Bay Area wants the density (and property taxes inflow)

They already have sufficient density and property prices to actually invest in infrastructure. The problem has always been Prop 13 and the artificial limits placed on taxes that would otherwise fund infrastructure locally.

It’s not artificial limits. Including special taxes, it averages out to 1.25. It’s on par with other places. What happened was that housing and economy skyrocketed within a very short period of time. Foreigners are allowed to invest in the housing market for speculative purposes. The extra tax income is used to fund public schools. More immigration and younger people having kids. And overall death rate slowing down. And that means publicl employees pension funds. Looking up unfunded pension liabilities is a good idea.

Also..why should everyone feel like owning a home is a right? You can always rent. In fact, it’s a better economic decision because renters take advantage of best school districts within dealing with the hassle of home ownership. People buy property as an investment that is like an speculative asset these days. Homes should be a dwelling. There will always be those who have appreciating assets and those who will inherit. Punitively punishing them with taxes is just irresponsible and will create more instability.

At the end of the day, most of this is noise. CA is better than most places in the USA..America is better than most places in the world. The govt needs to stop manufacturing dissent and focus on what they need to do and aren’t doing..public transportation would alleviate housing issues. Universal healthcare will help people live their lives and remove the pressure of working for insurance.

How many people in their 50s and 60s would rather not work and just retire but continue because they need to pay for insurance. If they are going to work in the Bay Area, why not live in a home they had bought decades ago?

But it doesn’t matter..with automation and AI, jobs are going to dwindle anyways. It’s best not to create Uber dense cities as they will not be needed when people experience unemployment. We should look towards some kind of universal basic necessities/services and health care rather than building more and imagining that jobs will last forever. That’s just not going to happen. Period.

America is better than most places in the world.

That’s very subjective. For example America ranks 143 out of 230 countries by murder rate. Economically, it’s better than average, but as a place to live it’s got serious issues.

> Also..why should everyone feel like owning a home is a right? You can always rent.

Or, if you want to buy, buy a condo!

That's largely true, but many parts of Paris itself are relatively working class (the 13th district, the 19th district) and still very dense.

Similarly while the outskirts of Paris don't have a subway system (they have the RER, akin to BART) they are still very dense.

Walkability comes from density almost inevitably because it's financially doable to have more stores/activities/restaurants in a smaller space while still getting customers. This makes walking around the city interesting.

I think the issues in the Bay Area cities I know relatively well (SF and SJ) comes down to political will to zone neighborhoods properly.

There is also some politically correct diversity quotas. In the bay areas, they think the local school teacher as well as Starbucks barista should be able to live in the same neighborhood as a FAANG millionaire. Naturally, this creates NIMBYs. It’s human nature.

Yes, it may be selfish, but for environmentalists it is selfish and hypocritical. I'm specifically looking at the wealthy, anti-growth, green community on the SF Peninsula.

You should get to know the other group of environmentalists who aren't wealthy, are pro-density, and are less likely to live in the peninsula (although I'm sure they exist there too). There are a lot more of them, so it shouldn't be hard!

Why? That has nothing to do with criticizing the home owning hypocrites on the peninsula.

Because by definition, they hardly represent the majority of pro-density advocates. If the GP has common cause with YIMBY urbanist environmentalists, then by numbers they are in good company.

The anti local density environmental crowd might represent more dollars, though. That's perhaps the issue.

I suspect, however that the divide is more generational. For the older generation, environmentalism was far more about preserving local wildlands and the wildlife in your backyard. The environmental problems that face the younger generation are far larger in scope and far more deeply intertwined with questions about how we power society.

There are plenty of hypocrites on both sides of the isle. Lots of people who claim to be against regulation... unless it's on their block. People who are environmentalists... unless it means there will be an apartment complex put up next door blocking their view. People who are pro-growth and pro-business... unless it's in their neighborhood. People who are for making housing more affordable, etc etc etc.

So-called environmentalists don't have a monopoly on hypocrisy, it's pretty much universal.

Yet some people vote for representatives who approve measures like SB50, and others vote for representatives who reject them. That is the dividing line that matters. How they vote, and invest time and money to influence other people’s vote, is what determines who is a hypocrite.

Preserving nice low density areas is not selfish. Why does everyone need to be entitled to live anywhere they want?

Is everybody conversely entitled to live in low density areas?

I don't see anyone from the suburbs demanding to demolish Manhattan and turn it into farm land. Likewise I wouldn't demand to have housing built for me in a specific town instead of living elsewhere.

Maybe because that's where the best jobs are. Maybe because that's where they're from and it's not their fault they're getting priced out (gentrification). Maybe because they just really like the place. In any case, you don't get to be a gatekeeper. Cities are public.

If the OP doesn’t get to be a gatekeeper, why do you get to be a change agent?

Population growth is the change agent.

But doesn't rezoning land to higher density increase it's value?

Which is why the system need to be reformed on a statewide level, not by making a special case of every project and every neighborhood.

I think he may be getting at urban sprawl being fought against in the bay area. Something along these lines perhaps, but I'm not sure.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/11/06/in-fight-against-urba...

CEQA requirements are exempt from affordable housing developments. And developing Coyote Valley has never been about affordable housing. Essentially all of the proposals to develop Coyote Valley have catered to high-income home owners and renters. Even the mayor said in that article that preserving Coyote Valley contributes to the city's affordable housing goals.

It all helps. Relieve the shortage in high-income housing, and maybe they'll stop bidding up the prices for (formerly) lower-income housing because they had to live somewhere.

While I don't doubt that is the case, I do think it's offset by the high-income housing people then buying a second or third property as investment (gotta be a landlord, or you just haven't made it, I guess). I wonder if there is real data on this?

This is exactly the problem! People aren't happy unless the housing being built is low income housing. Building materials aren't made out of class concious magic, a premium apartment might be higher quality but the same kinds of contractors can often be used. We can't spite the rich here, we need a solution that leverages the market. Build so much housing for the wealthy that the demand will be insufficient to sustain the supply and then let the builders move on to the middle before finally the lower class housing types. People want to see homeless and poor people being provided for, I get it. But people also want efficient spending and that means supplying the top first to incentivize the builders to move down chain.

Just keep building. The rich will very quickly stop buying housing as an investment when it stops outpacing the stock market on ROI.

Sprawl does not help with lowering the cost of living, so no. It doesn't all help.

Look at the track record of the SF Group of the Sierra Club. They consistent try to block dense urban development in the name is environmentalism. I went to their executive committee meetings for months, and even ran a failed campaign to unseat half the committee. They are very much part of the “preserve neighborhood character” and anti-density collation in SF politics.

Environmentalist support for density increases is only about 20 years old. When these policies were created, it was done by the previous generation of lawmakers.

Progressives now desire to live in the urban cores of large cities. It make sense for them to have their various political views reinforce each other.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com