Hacker News Reader

Serious answer: get into your local politics. Start calling up your representatives and demanding this change. Find a representative for which this is a key issue for them and start campaigning to get them elected or re-elected. Organize with other renters; there’s more of you than there are land owners there I bet.

The number of voters needed to radically alter the landscape of extremely local politics is probably maybe a dozen or less in this way, btw.

I got 14 residents of Los Altos Hills to join me to ask for changes to local zoning law. The council completely ignored us.

You have to be on the council, along with a like-minded majority. It'll be a full time job for all of you.

The bar is more accurately described as "controlling the selectorate", you need to be whomever is able to rally the votes to put people on or off the council. That person already exists, and has a lifetime's head start. Good luck.

I disagree fully. This is not "Democracy". This is arbitrary little dictators pushing their little pet agenda forward (no matter how good in your example) over those that just want to be left alone. The same thing you're advocating is the same reason the landscape of regulation is currently such a mess.

This reminds me of the guy who got bullied by his HOA, so he got a group to run, won, and dissolved the HOA.

Gavin Nuesome actually had good intentions with streamlining ADU's in California.

It turns out only the wealthy are taking advantage of the gift though.

In my county, I believe 6 guys took advantage of the streamlined process. It's still very expensive.

They used building the ADU as an excuse to build a bigger house, and that variance is hard to get, but if you have money and kiss ass, you can get it.

I believe almost all the 6 used an ADA unit to increase the size of their home. They all had to get variances from the town, and 5 got it. One homeowner refused to kiss the town council's ass, write begging letters to his neighbors, and attent countless meetings while paying for an architect, and a Builder's time.

They are all asked a bunch of questions.

The one that got me is "Are you going to rent the unit out to low income individuals. (Low income in my town is like "$90, 000. Yea--really. $110,00 if married.". All basically lied, and said yes they will rent it to a Nun. They wanted a bigger home, and the ADU will be used as----an Art studio, or for Lupe' the cheap help that will wipe them in later life?

My point putting in an ADU is fine, and I'm glad Neusome streamlined the process. People aren't taking advantage of it besides the wealthy though. The people whom didn't need any help.

I would rather see something different.

1. If a person (not a corporation, rich foreigner, etc.) of modest means buys a small piece of land they can put a trailer, tent, small cabin, etc. on the land. And of course live there. I'd even be ok with no foundations until you build properly, and no renting unless you offer it for free. I'd even be ok with time limits that are reviewed every ten years for free. So basically a guy would have to go in front of some official and sign a declaration that they still don't have the money to build a proper unit.

2. CA counties, and towns are going to be told to build more housing in the future if Neusome is still around. They only way I see it happening is if we start building huge blocks of housing, like I see being demolished in Ukraine. (I've seen pictures of Russia. It does look like everyone is in a reasonably priced apartment. I guess it's a leftover from evil Socialism.

Personally, I'd be happy with 1. I just don't think the powers at be really want to help the very poor.

Marin County, San Anselmo. This is basically the town I'm writing about. Newsome has a mansion here where Jenny wanders room to room trying to find something "important" in life to do. Be careful Gavin. She reminds me of an Amber Heard. I honestly like the guy. He was voted most fashionable in my high school.)

Why do you repeatedly misspell the governor's last name when you clearly know how it's supposed to be spelled? As evidenced by the last instance.

While there's a lot of NIMBY about zoning higher density, is not the problem also (partly) that 'price' can't be used as a motivating factor for more efficient (people/area) land use?

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13

i wonder if a hack like this would work: a large courtyard inside the house. so the actual inside living area is much less than what it looks like from the outside.

the only question is if you can get away with not putting a roof over the courtyard or if you can find a very cheap, lightweight roof that you can move aside.

> unless I'm in the process of building a home on a permanent foundation.

Would it possible to do that, but extremely slowly? What counts as being "in the process"? Just designing your home might take you many, many years...

No. The rules account for that and generally you get permission to live in the temporary mobile home for x amount of months with a provision for an extension for another x amount of months. You don’t get the permission to put up the mobile home/tiny home until after your designs have been completed and approved.

There are still plenty of ways to “hack” it, but they are all unpleasant. Is your goal to accumulate cash/build your net worth?

My parents recently bought a plot of land in a mobile home development in order to house my uncle with mental health issues. They have the exact same requirements you mention above - no travel trailers as permanent housing and permanent housing must meet square footage requirements. In a place named $X Mobile Home Estates. And in supposedly low-tax, freedom-loving Texas; not California.

Mobile home parks don't sell the land outright, but sell the rights to park a trailer on it. Are the regs from the park or the state

I did not say they bought land in a mobile home park.

> My parents recently bought a plot of land in a mobile home development

Did you forget what you wrote?

In fact I was quite careful with my words to use development because I did not feel that park described the situation. The plot is a quarter acre with it's own electrical and water connections that is in fact owned by my parents. I was somewhat circumspect, but I'll just use the actual name of the neighborhood - it is Canyon Lake Mobile Home Estates in Canyon Lake, TX. Up to a few years ago, it was a rural backwater on "the wrong side of the lake" and does not actually feature lake access or much chance of a view. For the last few years (predating the pandemic, but the pandemic seems like an accelerant) it has, like much of Texas, seen significant in-migration, probably exacerbated by its proximity to Austin. All that said, I still find it ridiculous that they don't allow people to live in travel trailers.

i guess what we are all not clear about is what is the difference between a mobile home and a trailer. my guess is mobile home refers to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufactured_housing which are factory assembled buildings that are moved as a whole to their destination where they make a permanent structure because they don't have wheels.

rules like these probably try to influence what kind of people are going to choose to live there.

I think your statement is correct in theory, but when you get into the actual practice of low-income housing, the lines get quite blurry and calling it a "mobile home" sure doesn't help. I'd say I'm more incensed at the idea of being told how to live on property that I putatively own, especially in a state that claims to have great respect for property rights.

incensed

oh, totally, things like that would drive me mad. if i am ever going to buy a plot of land then i'd want to do it far away from anyone who can tell me what do do with it (short of forest fire safety and pollution)

The real crime here is making six figures and not being able to afford to buy a 1-bedroom apartment. Capitalism.

You can save and live like a king all around the world, Silicon Valley programmers are the infamous %1 in the eyes of world.

So how the hell does this work in SF? Where do your cleaners, barristas, teachers and other assorted pauper servants live? Do they put them in caves under the ground in California or something?

They tend to either live with multiple roommates, commute from faraway places (like Stockton, Los Banos, and Salinas), or live in their vehicles. I remember reading an article (https://www.kqed.org/news/10467044/long-commute-to-silicon-v...) about a Stanford cafeteria worker who commuted from Stockton on public transportation.

Isn't this exactly what I was referring to? Not being able to afford even a 1-bedroom apartment in the city of which they work?

It’s not capitalism; it’s excessive government regulation preventing new housing from being built. (Also the ocean too)

Also extremely high immigration. We're in the high part of our immigration cycle which means depressed wages and expensive housing.

Some people might say it’s capitalism that allowed rich homeowners to take over government to create themselves laws to protect their real estate investment. Laws of the rich to make themselves richer.

That cannot be capitalism’s fault, because the city government is elected. Every adult gets one vote, no matter how much money they have. Every person has as much right as every other to try to convince the elected members of that government to take the correct course of action. If your city government is unfairly favoring one segment of the city’s population over another then you should elect a better one. Not all cities are as badly run as San Francisco. It can be done.

It’s capitalism. We have plenty of housing but a capitalist society protects hoarding housing more than equalizing housing. You end up with more airbnb, “investment” rentals or abandoned properties stuck in legal limbo than inventory for first time home buyers.

you can’t build to infinity when everything is built out…

Well, you’re not completely wrong there. In this case however, San Francisco is full to the gills with 100–year–old two–story houses, which the city government will not allow anyone to knock down and replace with four–story houses.

The real crime here is making six figures and not being able to afford to buy a 1-bedroom apartment. Leftism.

Anyone making six figures can live like a king almost anywhere in the US. Capitalism.

Just not in the places where you can actually make six figures!

It may not have been the case even five years ago and you definitely won't make the same six figures, but that simple threshold is probably in reach in any mid-size american city for a software dev more than a year or two into their career.

I'm a bit confused by housing in San Francisco. The median household income in San Francisco is around $120k, which suggests that making six figures is quite sufficient for living in San Francisco.

But the impression I often get on HN is that you've got people making well above that finding themselves barely able to afford a place to live in SF.

I'm clearly missing something, but what?

I think everybody is just stuck renting and can't get on the property ladder.

Half goes to taxes and half of what's left over goes to rent. After that you have to save up for a pretty large downpayment.

Somebody could have bought a house in 90s for 200K, retired and live in the same house, which has appreciated to 2M now, drawing on 60K retirement. Somebody making 180K cannot afford the 2M house even though these two individuals have a median 120K income and the latter makes much more than the former.

I make six figures and can afford only a modest 1-bedroom in a rural area well outside of an east coast university town. I will probably not be able to afford a house without parental help.

My back-of-the-napkin math suggests you are in a high COL area. It's not an indictment of capitalism if you choose to live in a desirable area, have a generous salary, and just can't make it work. That or you are mishandling your finances, but I don't know your situation. For reference, I am debt-free homeowner in a midwest university town and make much less than you.

I recently started the process of moving from my high cost of living California home to a low cost of living, but still on the coast city. Three years ago you'd see homes in this city for $300k. Almost all of them are now approaching $600k. The areas which used to be considered low cost are now unaffordable to everyone currently living there as well as a large swath of people not making huge total comp at FAANG. Other costs are still less expensive but housing is nuts everywhere I've looked.

The only homes I've seen for $200k need to basically be torn down and are too small for a family.

The Bay Area in particular is something of an outlier in that it's pretty hard to reasonably drive out of the expensive area in, say, an hour.

That's much less true of most metros. Even a fairly expensive city like Boston, while there are expensive suburban towns, an hour drive gets you to some small cities, exurbs, and other suburbs where housing prices are--if not cheap--pretty reasonable (e.g. $300-400K for midrange houses--though prices may have risen). And a lot of the professional jobs are well outside the city anyway.

Even in the Bay Area about an hour's drive gets you to Stockton which has plenty of houses for sale for under $450k that look pretty decent on Redfin.

An hour or so commute each way sucks, but if you can get a Bay Area job that is either fully WFH or that only requires you to come into the office once a week being an hour away wouldn't be too bad, especially if you can arrange the hours on that one day a week you come in so that you are't driving during the most congested times.

I had about a 90 minute commute (either mostly driving or mostly train) for about 18 months--averaging coming into my Boston office maybe a couple days a week. I wouldn't have wanted to do that long term and stretches when I was in more frequently were pretty bad. But it's pretty manageable for one day a week.

> It's not an indictment of capitalism if you choose to live in a desirable area, have a generous salary, and just can't make it work.

It's an indictment of any system that people making twice the median household income cannot afford to buy housing within a reasonable distance of wherever their labor generates that income. It's a terrible situation - communities in which at least half of the necessary jobs do not pay enough for the people who do those jobs to live in the community - and it isn't good for anyone in or around those communities, and probably not for the nation as a whole.

The fact that, yes, yes of course there are other communities where the economics are different doesn't in any way mitigate the fucked-up ness of the situation the GP is describing.

>> Midwest

Is it a failure of capitalism if semi-rich people can't afford to live among rich people on the coasts?

I suppose that depends on how you evaluate the success or failure of capitalism. The richest person in the world would probably say that capitalism is a great success. As far as the coasts, all life choices involve trade offs.

Student loans?

In most counties in California you are free to buy land.

After that, just expect to pay property taxes unless you have money to build exactly the home they sign off on.

I once was ready to buy a reasonable small piece of land in Bolinas after graduating from college. I should have known the price was too good.

When I called the seller he took pity on me when I told him I wanted to just use it to pitch a tent on until I saved more money.

He said, "Son---you can't even put an blanket on "your" land and take a nap."

I haven’t tried this, but I am curious if they would allow you to build a garage or storage unit on the property. Is there anything they cannot legally block?

I wonder also if there is an obligation to finish construction in a certain time frame. If not you could draw up grandiose plans with an architect and after you get the permit you just build part of it immediately and start living in that part and then take the next 20-30 years to build the rest, if ever.

You generally have to get a certificate of inspection when the work in a permit is complete and a number of things are technically illegal before then.

Land of the free?

The west coast is only really representative of the west coast.