6 ms·

Its actually a regulation problem. City councils, local govts create this problem with restrictions on buildings and what type of things can go into their city

Its actually a regulation problem. City councils, local govts create this problem with restrictions on buildings and what type of things can go into their city. These people should rise up and realize their living in something created by govt.

ianai 7y ago
Those policies are influenced at the local level. Unfortunately they’re also often basically controlled by special interests. If anything could change it, it would be people en masse taking an interest in local elections at significant rates. There’s no voting power larger, in the US, than the people who sit out. It’d also mean going to meetings, probably.
- calvinmorrison 7y ago
  Also by neighbors. I don't think it's unreasonable for neighborhoods to have a say in what zoning exist
mhluongo 7y ago
> Its actually a regulation problem. That's another way of saying "a housing policy problem"
- casefields 7y ago
  Public policy is enacted through regulations. The housing shortage is a regulation problem, that must be addressed through public policy.
vippy 7y ago
It’s a problem of property rights, markets, and regulation. If we wanted to solve this problem, we could use eminent domain to secure public land, and taxes to construct additional units of housing.
docbrown 7y ago
> Its actually a regulation problem. This response is a common issue we run into when discussing policy. When people do not understand that policy is the absolute bedrock foundation for any and all subsequent law or regulation, they tend to not be able to visualize how wide of a net “policy” is and what falls underneath it. Example: Policy simplified: No more than X number of multi-family homes allowed. Regulations and zoning laws are second: We only have room for X, so we can have no more than X number of multi family homes in Y sq miles. As you can see, a decision does not start as a law nor regulation, it is broad policy. So with your claim that it’s a regulation issue, how would changing the inferior part of the policy ensure it promotes change from the bottom-up? It will not change the issues that are created as a result of the original base policy (i.e. X number of MFHs allowed). All regulations and laws must have a basis which can help explain the what, how, and why of implementation to ensure it falls within the boundaries of the initial policy decision.
echelon 7y ago
> City councils, local govts create this problem with restrictions on buildings and what type of things can go into their city. Good luck fighting the land owners. NIMBY is more organized and has huge political will. I honestly don't know what can be done and worry this will always be a problem.
- souprock 7y ago
  You can find your own land to own. Back in 1962 my grandma had her house built on some undesirable empty hills, in the city but far from the action. There wasn't a tech industry. That house is in the geographic center of San Francisco and is now worth about $2,000,000. It's still on a lovely tree-lined street with plenty of available free parking. You would take that from her and the other people who created the neighborhood you now covet. You would change it forever, adding all the charm of a trailer park or housing project. The free parking would be gone. No. You go make your own desirable neighborhood in a different city. You're trying to cheat by skipping a step. You don't want to wait half a century. You want that nice neighborhood now, without investing the time to create it.
  - echelon 7y ago
    > Back in 1962 my grandma [...] Good for her. She could actually afford to own. This generation doesn't have the same luxury. I hope Millennials and Gen-Z will be courteous enough to not defund social security and Medicare. They're growing pretty angry with student loans, cost of living, and inability to afford housing and retirement. They'll be looking for someone to blame when they're 40 and jaded. > You would change it forever, adding all the charm of a trailer park or housing project. The free parking would be gone. That's extreme. I was going to say apartment tower, which makes much more sense than single family dwellings with wasted space for parking cars. > You're trying to cheat by skipping a step. You don't want to wait half a century. You want that nice neighborhood now, without investing the time to create it. I own a half million dollar condo on the Atlanta Beltline. By all rights I should be a NIMBY too, but I empathize with those that are struggling and hope for densification and affordability. I didn't buy my place as an "investment" - I bought it because I love it and the neighborhood I live in. Lower house prices will mean lower property taxes, so it'd be a win-win. I want them to build more here. Housing shouldn't be an investment you horde and keep from others because you've already got yours. Housing is an escape from constant shackles of rent-seeking. It should be accessible. People this generation don't even have that as a dream anymore... > neighborhood you now covet SF is a smelly and cold quagmire, and I only travel for business. It's a total monoculture without a thriving art or music scene. I've no interest in ever living there. Tech either needs to pack up and leave, the law needs to enable denser building, or land owners need to see their values drop through steep, progressive taxation. SF the city is extorting too much from business for not much in return - all of their employees are getting fleeced by the cost of housing. Businesses should shop elsewhere for a better run town that isn't controlled by rent seeking leeches preventing progress because they refuse to work hard and add new value. I'm hoping tech leaves. My startup will be on the east coast.

ianai 7y ago

Those policies are influenced at the local level. Unfortunately they’re also often basically controlled by special interests. If anything could change it, it would be people en masse taking an interest in local elections at significant rates. There’s no voting power larger, in the US, than the people who sit out. It’d also mean going to meetings, probably.

calvinmorrison 7y ago
Also by neighbors. I don't think it's unreasonable for neighborhoods to have a say in what zoning exist

mhluongo 7y ago

> Its actually a regulation problem. That's another way of saying "a housing policy problem"

casefields 7y ago
Public policy is enacted through regulations. The housing shortage is a regulation problem, that must be addressed through public policy.

vippy 7y ago

It’s a problem of property rights, markets, and regulation. If we wanted to solve this problem, we could use eminent domain to secure public land, and taxes to construct additional units of housing.

docbrown 7y ago

> Its actually a regulation problem. This response is a common issue we run into when discussing policy. When people do not understand that policy is the absolute bedrock foundation for any and all subsequent law or regulation, they tend to not be able to visualize how wide of a net “policy” is and what falls underneath it. Example: Policy simplified: No more than X number of multi-family homes allowed. Regulations and zoning laws are second: We only have room for X, so we can have no more than X number of multi family homes in Y sq miles. As you can see, a decision does not start as a law nor regulation, it is broad policy. So with your claim that it’s a regulation issue, how would changing the inferior part of the policy ensure it promotes change from the bottom-up? It will not change the issues that are created as a result of the original base policy (i.e. X number of MFHs allowed). All regulations and laws must have a basis which can help explain the what, how, and why of implementation to ensure it falls within the boundaries of the initial policy decision.

echelon 7y ago

> City councils, local govts create this problem with restrictions on buildings and what type of things can go into their city. Good luck fighting the land owners. NIMBY is more organized and has huge political will. I honestly don't know what can be done and worry this will always be a problem.

souprock 7y ago
You can find your own land to own. Back in 1962 my grandma had her house built on some undesirable empty hills, in the city but far from the action. There wasn't a tech industry. That house is in the geographic center of San Francisco and is now worth about $2,000,000. It's still on a lovely tree-lined street with plenty of available free parking. You would take that from her and the other people who created the neighborhood you now covet. You would change it forever, adding all the charm of a trailer park or housing project. The free parking would be gone. No. You go make your own desirable neighborhood in a different city. You're trying to cheat by skipping a step. You don't want to wait half a century. You want that nice neighborhood now, without investing the time to create it.
- echelon 7y ago
  > Back in 1962 my grandma [...] Good for her. She could actually afford to own. This generation doesn't have the same luxury. I hope Millennials and Gen-Z will be courteous enough to not defund social security and Medicare. They're growing pretty angry with student loans, cost of living, and inability to afford housing and retirement. They'll be looking for someone to blame when they're 40 and jaded. > You would change it forever, adding all the charm of a trailer park or housing project. The free parking would be gone. That's extreme. I was going to say apartment tower, which makes much more sense than single family dwellings with wasted space for parking cars. > You're trying to cheat by skipping a step. You don't want to wait half a century. You want that nice neighborhood now, without investing the time to create it. I own a half million dollar condo on the Atlanta Beltline. By all rights I should be a NIMBY too, but I empathize with those that are struggling and hope for densification and affordability. I didn't buy my place as an "investment" - I bought it because I love it and the neighborhood I live in. Lower house prices will mean lower property taxes, so it'd be a win-win. I want them to build more here. Housing shouldn't be an investment you horde and keep from others because you've already got yours. Housing is an escape from constant shackles of rent-seeking. It should be accessible. People this generation don't even have that as a dream anymore... > neighborhood you now covet SF is a smelly and cold quagmire, and I only travel for business. It's a total monoculture without a thriving art or music scene. I've no interest in ever living there. Tech either needs to pack up and leave, the law needs to enable denser building, or land owners need to see their values drop through steep, progressive taxation. SF the city is extorting too much from business for not much in return - all of their employees are getting fleeced by the cost of housing. Businesses should shop elsewhere for a better run town that isn't controlled by rent seeking leeches preventing progress because they refuse to work hard and add new value. I'm hoping tech leaves. My startup will be on the east coast.