[skrebbel]

I'm a clueless foreigner [0], and HN is my only window into the Bay Area (and, in a more general sense, into America), so I appreciate your writeup. On HN my impression that absolutely everybody agrees that SF and the cities near it should just build more and higher. It appears to solve all the problems (insane rent, extreme commutes, homelessness, poo), so why is it politically untenable? Who exactly is pro insane rent, extreme commutes, homelessness and poo?

I mean, the home owners can't be the voting majority right?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17932484

[1053r]

In many parts of the bay area (SF, Berkley, East Palo Alto), the incentives of large swaths of renters are neutralized on this issue through extremely severe rent control laws. Between rent control and Proposition 13,* the vast majority of residents in most jurisdictions have incentives to either not care, or to actively oppose anything that would lower home values, either by improving transit, or densification.

* Proposition 13 is a law which is effectively "rent control for property taxes." It was passed through a direct democracy provision in the CA constitution, which prevents it from being undone by anything other than another direct vote by the residents of CA. It allows people to own homes worth many millions of dollars, while only paying a few hundred dollars a month on property taxes. This tax rate is inheritable, effectively creating a "landed gentry" class in CA. The tax rate is lost in most cases if the owner moves or does renovations beyond a certain extent, leading to numerous seemingly insane behaviors: for example, tearing down an entire house except for a single small wall, and then building a new house around that wall, or continuing to live in a 5 bedroom home long after all the children have moved out, crowding out a new family from being able to use that space. Worst of all, however, it has created incentives to vote for any and all proposed laws that make new building more difficult, leading to numerous follow on laws.

[komodo]

NIMBY-ism mostly. The people lucky enough to already own property don't want further residential development. It keeps their property values artificially high. There is an unreasonable expectation that if you buy a house in a nice quiet suburb then it should stay a nice quiet suburb the entire time you are living there.

In California specifically, they voted themselves (via referendum) a law which also keeps property taxes down for incumbents

"The proposition decreased property taxes by assessing property values at their 1976 value and restricted annual increases of assessed value of real property to an inflation factor, not to exceed 2 percent per year. It also prohibited reassessment of a new base year value except for in cases of (a) change in ownership, or (b) completion of new construction. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(197...

[mywittyname]

Let's say you paid $1,000,000 for a home that would fetch $200,000 in most other parts of the country.

What would you do if someone proposed a law that you figured would half the value of your home? Eat the loss or oppose the law?

Property owners in CA are being rational. They don't like the poop, commutes and homelessness. But they aren't willing to take a half-million dollar bath on their real-estate investment.

[skrebbel]

Sure, but my question was why they control the vote.

[erikpukinskis]

If you have $1M for an apartment, you have $1k for a political contribution.

If you can barely afford your $2k rent, you don’t.

[corysama]

Property owners in SF are extremely motivated to be politically active. The insane raises in property values are literally their profits. Voting is not the only avenue. Try to build anything and the whole neighborhood will call for “studies on the effect on the community” to keep you tied up in court for years.

SF does spend a huge amount on its homeless. But, it’s apparently not effective. I can’t speak to why.