Hacker News Reader

Comment by returningfory2 | Hacker News Reader

I entirely get the desire to live in a rural environment and keep Port Reyes as it is. The problem is that this desire is in direct conflict with housing being affordable. If everyone who lives in a non-dense neighborhood forces it to stay that way, new housing cannot be built and housing prices skyrocket because the population is increasing. This is literally the story of the Bay Area housing market.

I think there is a balance between not changing the built environment too much (the NIMBY position, say) and building enough new housing to keep prices reasonable (the YIMBY position). The problem is that over the last decades public policy has been dramatically in favor of the NIMBY position. And I think what we're seeing now is a backlash against this.

View on HN

I think there is obviously a balance. The problem is how it is being done. Currently Marin is going through something they call a housing element. They have hired a consultant group from LA to find lots they think would be good and are just rezoning things with a broad brush. I don't think the planners have even been to the county, let alone the town. The plan literally takes some of the vacant parts of town and encourages high density apartments.

The prior affordable housing has also backfired. They did a development 20 years ago that was meant to provide local housing. But, because it had federal backing, it meant anyone could apply. A large number of people who live in the project are people on section 8 and disability with no ties to the region whatsoever. They don't work in or contribute to the community, but rather just get free apartments.

To add insult to injury, many of the homes that were made under the original development became vacation rentals about 10 years after they were built (some expiration on deed restrictions or something).

Here is an example: https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/19192461?guests=1&adults=1&s=67...

Clearly this is not what was intended. There has to be a better way.

> A large number of people who live in the project are people on section 8 and disability with no ties to the region whatsoever.

No ties besides… living in said community. How is the disability status of residents relevant to your classification of the project as a failure? Are you advocating for federal housing aid to come with requirements like “locals only” and “non-disabled residents only”?

My point is that people advocate for these projects so the people who can work in the town can live in the town.

So, if someone from out of town who can't work moves in, it undermines the point of the project. In that sense, the disability status is relevant.

I think housing that does require you to work in the community is fair and logical. Otherwise do we just build projects in high end places that essentially just become a lottery for people on government assistance?

To be honest I kind of doubt there's a large enough amount of said folks that this would be worth doing (do you have a source beyond "large numbers"?).

Besides, even disabled need a place to live, and they are probably contributing to the region by purchasing goods.

What is the better way to satisfy housing demand than to build housing?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com