Hacker News Reader

Comment by nikhizzle | Hacker News Reader

How can people of moderate (Silicon Valley) means help?

Push for policy changes that allow for the addition of enough housing to bring down prices.

Surely, we need more government regulations and programs not less. Removing zoning laws can't possibly be the solution. Maybe we can have the government give housing to poor families, thereby taking housing stock off the market and reducing supply.

Revamping zoning laws probably is the solution. Make it easier to build more housing.

I think the parent commenter was being sarcastic and would agree with you.

This is hilarious. California is so liberal that people are taking my sarcastic comment literally.

What always surprises me is that in the US "liberal" means left leaning and pro government intervention. Which is basically the opposite of liberalism.

> What always surprises me is that in the US "liberal" means left leaning and pro government intervention. Which is basically the opposite of liberalism.

Politically speaking, "left leaning" and "liberal" are both terms of 18th century origin, referring to the same kind of opponents of the centralized monarchic/oligarchic authority in favor of distribution of power to the people at large based on a conception of inherent rights; they certainly aren't opposite terms.

And the modern US liberal/conservative divide is a lot more about the purpose of government intervention than for/against it. (Both liberals and conservatives attack each other over different policies for supporting government control over individual freedom.)

This is simple supply and demand. Everyone from liberal economist Paul Krugman [1] to SF board of supervisors member Scott Wiener [2] agrees that California and bay area housing policies are horrible. The only people who actually like these policies are the people who are benefiting from them, typically because they moved to a neighborhood decades ago and are either on rent control or "rent control for property tax" (aka Proposition 13).

The solution is simple. Set aside a square mile in each city on the peninsula and zone it such that it is illegal to build a building of less than 10 stories. At the same time, and more importantly, repeal both proposition 13 and rent control statutes.

For step 3, sit back and watch the California economy go into turbo drive as there is a massive construction boom, which funnels money away from rich landlords and into the pockets of ordinary construction workers and the service workers that support both them and the engineers the region's wealth is built on.

1 - http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent-... 2 - https://medium.com/@Scott_Wiener/yes-supply-demand-apply-to-...

Considering how many folks have most of their net worth tied up in a $1.5M 1500 sq. ft. home in the city, there is going to be a TON of resistance to more building. Can you imagine the average price of a home dropping to $700K? Tens of thousands of folks would be underwater on their homes.

All of the value in their homes was created by government regulation. Complaining about the price of your home going down because government regulation is removed is like taxi medallion owners complaining about Uber. In both cases government unfairly created the wealth through regulating scarcity.

That may be true, but all they see is the value going down.

Absolutely agree. It baffles me why the tech companies in the area don't lobby aggressively for reduced zone regulations and restrict appeals to construction work. The whole bay area would profit massively from a more flexible workforce and less money being spent on rents (in addition to the construction boom).

Often they do. City residents resist. Palo Alto and Mountain View are good examples.

Please elaborate. I'm not well versed in the world of policy. How can I push for these changes? What are the changes?

In SF, building regulations includes very powerful neighborhood groups with the ability to make arbitrary changes to projects. The net result of their involvement tends to be less housing at higher cost.

There are also many areas zoned for a maximum height of zero feet.

As for how to be involved, start by looking up who your city councilperson is. Talking to them would be a good start.

> There are also many areas zoned for a maximum height of zero feet.

The smartass in me wants to say, "then build subterranean homes/buildings" :)

Would suck in terms of natural lighting but it would be nice to see the faces of people who want those zones to be like that.

People would rent subterranean apartments in Silicon Valley.

I believe regulations require multiple immediate exits available from each apartment in case of earthquake/fire. Makes underground ones a non-starter.

Unfortunately, building down tends to be much more expensive then building up.

The super-rich already do this in London[1].

Though there is legislation in the works to limit maximum depth as well as height[2].

1 - http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2012/nov/09/billiona...

2 - http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241278873238935045785595...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com