Single-family housing in the Bay Area linked to more racially segregated cities | Hacker News Reader

Single-family housing in the Bay Area linked to more racially segregated cities

mercurynews.com

25 pointsapsec11248 comments

I live in a fairly low income area of the bay area, and when I drive into the Berkeley hills, Marin, or Piedmont/rich Oakland the density of Black Lives Matter signs in front of houses increases. Thats anecdotal evidence obviously, but there is something funny about our status quo when people live in a $2m home on a 1/2 acre of extremely sought after real estate while loudly advertising their desire for more equality.

It is an interesting time watching the intersection of all these disparate ideals trying to coalesce into a coherent worldview and lifestyle in everyones minds.

I thought BLM was about equality before law (enforcers), not economical egalitarianism.

Unfortunately there's a large overlap in the Venn diagram between NIMBYs and progressives, and those afflicted don't realize the inherent contradiction in holding both of those views. Personally I'm in the "build lots more housing everywhere because that'll make it cheaper for everyone" camp.

Yeah there’s a certain irony living in Palo Alto and seeing all of the black lives matters signs while the owners here do everything in their power to prevent any housing from getting built. Housing that would actually make this area more affordable to a larger audience.

Who are the signs even for?

The feeling I get is, “black lives matter but they can stay a town or two away from us - like in East Palo Alto.”

It doesn’t look better when the history had explicit racial constraints on zoning.

Well, people want to live in safe neighborhoods with good schools, with a well funded police, etc. There's nothing wrong with that. It's not their job to fix the systematic issues in the US. It's not about race, it's about socioeconomic status.

The inequitable aspect of "safe neighborhoods" is they depend on other cities for their existence. The people of Piedmont, as an example, require access to the cities of Oakland and San Francisco for their livelihoods, because there are no jobs, no businesses, and no cultural institutions of any kind in the town of Piedmont. They are purely parasitic.

When you look at Berkeley you have somewhat of the opposite issue: they have the same population they had in 1950, but the number of jobs in Berkeley has doubled in the meantime. The general taxpayers of the Bay Area have paid to build three subway stations and an interstate highway through Berkeley, but Berkeley stubbornly refuses to let anyone enjoy the fruits of these investments except for people who already lived there half a century ago.

That's true for many US cities but it doesn't mean it should be that way. In Europe for example there are many safe cities that are great places to live and raise a family but also have businesses and everything else you find in major urban areas. I can also give examples of such cities in the US.

It sounds like we're all agreeing then. The other cities you're alluding to that actually do build enough housing to meet the demand for local jobs are doing things right. Contrast with the cities we've been discussing in this thread which have not been allowing much new housing development to meet demand and thus are creating all of the problems being talked about here.

This is a bit of a strawman.

The people I’m talking about aren’t funding those things anyway because they pay next to nothing in property tax compared to their new neighbors thanks to prop13.

I’m also not arguing for housing projects. The median housing cost in Palo Alto is well over a million. Prop13 means that old owners aren’t paying the tax on that cost and are incentivized to restrict building. This drives costs higher for really low quality housing.

This means only multimillionaires can afford to buy housing here. Everyone else is someone who got in long ago or are new kids out of college with high paying jobs renting with three roommates.

Increasing the housing supply makes the cost less absurd for everyone, a natural extension of that is more people can afford to live there and you get more diversity (since history has skewed who has that kind of wealth on average).

The people restricting housing are acting in their own financial interest, they should have to pay that cost in property tax at their house FMV. At a minimum on sale, but I’d prefer some percentage each year closing the gap unless their town builds some large amount of new housing.

I don't argue with that. My comment was more general, not about the Palo Alto area and its property tax laws. I don't live in California and not familiar with the specifics of housing in the Bay Area. My main comment was in response to "black lives matter but they can stay a town or two away from us - like in East Palo Alto.".

You argued that it wasn't race, but socioeconomic status.

It was explicitly race historically:

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/07/03/not-all-neigh...

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/07/03/black-in-palo...

Restricting supply now is often justified by 'keeping neighborhood character', but that character is one which explicitly excluded others based on their race.

I'd argue there are also examples where it's race and not socioeconomic status today. There was a recent story from a black VC jogging in Palo Alto who had the police called on him because 'he was up to something'. (I searched around, but couldn't find the link to his story).

Increasing housing supply doesn't make neighborhoods unsafe and would increase the funding available to the local communities.

> "There's nothing wrong with that. It's not their job to fix the systematic issues in the US."

It may not be their job to fix everything, but I'd argue they're responsible for not pushing policy to make things worse.

And allowing more development doesn't run counter to those goals. It may not be their job to fix all the problems in the US but it's certainly not their job to make things explicitly worse through actively pushing for exclusionary housing policies.

> when I drive into the Berkeley hills, Marin, or Piedmont/rich Oakland the density of Black Lives Matter signs in front of houses increases.

Because unfortunately, a large part of the phenomenon is just virtue signaling.

Love to see how much money those supporters of whatever virtual signaling they are cheerleading donate their wealth to such causes. Is it 25% ... is it anything at all?

On a recent hiking trip up a popular mid-Atlantic hike virtue signal supporters defaced a huge sign/plaque dedicated to union soldiers. I was confused .. just as much as they are!

>here is something funny about our status quo when people live in a $2m home on a 1/2 acre of extremely sought after real estate while loudly advertising their desire for more equality.

This isn't isolated to the Bay either. I struggle with understanding activists who have careers in tech/pharma/etc who publically express these types of problems but privately are willing participants in the systems they deride. Sometimes I'm not sure if they actually want to live in the world they're fighting for.

I know plenty of eco-activists who saddle up to the bar and order a hamburger after attending a meeting about how factory farming is destroying the world and we need to stop eating meat as a society yesterday.

There recently was a kerfuffle in Berkeley when Robert Reich, ex-Secretary of Laber, UC Berkeley professor, and author of "The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It" was found to have written a letter to the city in opposition of a small apartment building that is proposed to replace an empty detached house on the block where he lives in his 2-million-dollar house. There is often a gap between the positions taken in print, and the actions taken in practice.

Perversity of doing good at others' expense!!

Which, to my knowledge, he hasn't addressed or offered any rebuttal.

I don't see why it's funny. The fact you're rich doesn't mean you don't support equality. Also the slogan BLM can mean many things. The fact someone supports BLM (for whatever it means) doesn't mean they also think money should be equally distributed.

Realistically, what do you expect them to do? Bulldoze their own homes, become real estate developers, and build high-density housing on the lot?

Living in an expensive house shouldn't disqualify someone from advocating against racial injustice. Simply buying a home and living in it is hardly equivalent to being a NIMBY.

They should stop lobbying the city to make it illegal to build houses that cost less than $2 million.

Or even just stop lobbying the city to make it illegal to build houses.

Those are called "luxury beliefs". The very same people would start locking their doors at night if a black family were to move in next door, and move their kids to a different private school if it got a little too "diverse" with Hispanic and black kids. That's why they move their kids out of public schools in the first place.

Classic hypocrisy and NIMBY-ism. Nominally, they support the lofty causes as long as they're paid with someone else's money and are in someone else's backyard. Ex: Beverly Hills calling the police on the rioters while supporting the riots just the day before, or Seattle mayor Jenny Durkan who, when rioters showed up at her house, had CHOP bulldozed the very next day.

There are are almost no exceptions to this that I could personally observe. And they will of course vehemently deny it (just watch the downvote count on this post), but in private that's how they behave.

How do you reconcile that some of the most respected and influential US politicians (the main authors of the US Constitution) were essentially rich people from well off families?

If you think about it it makes sense: poor families do not have the luxury to care for societal level change or to promote it in any shape or form. They are more worried about putting food on the table, keeping themselves clothed and a roof over their heads. I think it's only logical that people who do not have to struggle with such issues are the ones that are more likely to influence political change, even if at a glance the changes they are proposing do not seem to directly serve their interests.

Now whether their stated ideas are followed with action is a different matter.

Personally, it strikes me as profoundly illiberal that we allow and expect from local governments such complete control over private use of private property.

It is probably one of the most important policy issues from an economic/social perspective, and yet it doesn't have a clear valence in today's binary, identitarian political discourse. I see people from all backgrounds and affiliations arguing for/against upzoning/housing density.

"we support housing, just not in our neighborhood"

Everyone wants to surround themselves with those at a socioeconomic status above them, or at worst equal to them.

Agreed, even as I am currently home searching - this, I want to be the worst house in the neighborhood.

Not the best, never the best.

When you rezone, it doesn't force houses to be torn down, it just allows people to build denser.

Which may well devalue someone's house as much as tearing down a supporting wall would...

Ultimately it is about protection of personal property. The value and and desirability of your personal property is directly tied to adjacent properties and the neighborhood. Height restrictions prevent someone building a tall building and blocking your view, which would have significant and direct cost to your asset value. Zoning restrictions ensure the neighborhood stays safe and quiet, another direct contributor of asset value.

This is not sustainable at scale, clearly density is necessary. But, there is a legitimate case for protecting private property values, creating density where it makes sense but not where it doesn't.

I wonder if there is any data on how upzoning affects suburban property values. I would prefer not to live in a single family detached house next to condos. Then again, the optionality to put 10+ units on a lot has to be worth something.

I tend to agree that it is problematic to embed so much power into local governments. They are ill equipped to handled the research required to make those choices meaningfully. The smaller and poorer the towns, the less equipped they are to be informed.

There is a kind of loop that happens in this debate, though.

1. we want progress, 2. progress requires money, 3. money requires growth 4. growth requires change 5. change is not always progress...

Whether or not you agree with the premise of any items on that loop, it seems to happen that the loop is the refrains of all small governments (and maybe large ones?) who need to fund all of their actions out of current and future receivables. Without changes that increase property value (and therefore taxes), many small governments in the US have few levers for progress. If they levy higher taxes in other forms, it puts a regressive burden on their poorest members, if they do nothing then they can't be progressive.

I tend to think of the shortcomings as a matter of debt, mostly. Debt is the ultimate anti-progressive force, since it sticks around long after mistakes have been made. many municipalities have increased levels of debt to keep up with the levels of progress they require, but the debts need to be funded by future revenues, which means growth in future revenues.

An uncomfortable conclusion of this is that even if our smaller governments acted with the best of intent, They will be left paying for their mistakes for many years to come, and that those financial commitments to projects which did not pay off in hindsight may cripple their ability to make correct choices now.

edit: source on State and Local Debt: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11502

I would hope that increasing density doesn't require much upfront investment. It's definitely true that density creates more strain on public goods like roads that are disproportionately funded by yesterday's taxpayers. I guess that is a pretty reasonable externality to incorporate into permitting fees.

It’s the load on parking, sewer, electric, gas lines, school districts, hospitals, etc. it all adds up, and if you recover all the costs from the permitting, then nobody will build. It is quite complicated.

The thing is, it was sold to current owners of single-family dwellings as a sort of “right” not to have too many neighbours to know them all, so if you take that away now, it is going to be unpopular.

I think part of this could be solved by just not living in the Bay Area, and choosing to live somewhere with a better zoning law (like Houston) and take a cycle to genuinely understand how politics produces that good before voting, I know that sounds crazy.

Well, the Bay Area has very conservative politics, so this is not a surprise. The rhetoric here is all around preservation and the lost golden age and all that stuff - standard conservative fare.

There's a veneer of supporting progressive issues but it's a veneer. I imagine that most people would have high RWAS scores as well.

Burlingame, one of the wealthiest cities in the Bay Area, has a decent mix of multifamily and single family housing. The last time I checked, it was about 50/50 renters owners. Given the exorbitant prices to buy a house there, the rents are somewhat reasonable (quite a bit cheaper than SF, starting at about $1800 for a one bedroom). In spite of this, it still is very racially homogenous (very few African Americans or Latinos). Additionally, the schools tend to be mostly homeowner's children -- very few families rent there in order to give their children access into the top ranked public schools. Based on the real world example of Burlingame, it's not clear that changing the zoning rules will lead to the outcomes that the study authors hope for.

Outline version for those with browsers that won't render the page properly without massive amounts of popups: https://outline.com/3Ezn4C

Unflag please - this post is perfectly consistent with site guidelines.

> Wright’s opposition to denser housing in his San Jose neighborhood has made him bedfellows with one rather uncomfortable partner for the self-described liberal: President Donald Trump, who has decried efforts led by Wiener and others to build “low income housing” in suburban communities. “It’s an absolute nightmare for me to say anything that is so close to what Trump has been saying about the invasion of the suburbs,” Wright said. “There’s a very embarrassing and disturbing parallel.”

And yet he is also quoted as saying “I don’t know what the answer is.” This just reflects the same issue I’ve seen since moving to the Bay Area 20 years ago: people’s value and pride in their “diverse” geographical area being at odds with their desire for ever-higher property values and NIMBYism. It’s pretty clear which one usually wins, even if folks can scarcely bring themselves to admit it.

it's pretty obvious that he DOES know what the answer is, he just doesn't like it...

unsure why this is flagged, Bay Area housing issues directly affect some major technology companies as we know them.

The lack of affordable housing for many "minority" communities is a huge barrier to technology jobs, among many other things.

Bay Area housing prices are still out of control, though. I worry that it's going to continue to push ethnic communities right out of the area forever.

People are always very woke and liberal until it affects their privilege or their pocketbooks. Which is a huge problem. You get great responses when you take polls about whether racial equality and justice is important to people and that something should be done. But, if you try to do any actual, concrete policy, the polling rapidly drops.

Everyone is pretty sure that "rich people" should pay for everything, and that "rich" is defined as anyone that has 10x more wealth than I do. Whether you're making 20k or making 200k, everyone thinks that real wealth is one order of magnitude away.

It’s not all relative, there are levels of wealth which are beyond normal conception, even in absolute terms. There are people who clearly have more money than they could reasonably spend in a lifetime (billionaires in particular), and then there are people who have an expensive house but not much else to speak of.

Both of those classes of people are right. Wealth in America is now so concentrated that "the rich" can all fit on the same airplane. The political conversation has been corrupted by convincing ordinary people that they have a common interest with the rich. This has been so successful that my mother, with a net worth of about $50k, gets on the phone to tell me how angry she is about Joe Biden's inheritance tax, which doesn't cost anything on estates worth less than $5 million.

As someone not from the US, this discussion sounds just strange. I don't think housing policy solves homelessness and there are completely different issues. I also don't think SF is the "entry" to tech.

It does sound like people just want cheap housing. Understandable, but doesn't sound like a policy to reduce racism at all.

Is this another drug experiment?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com