[hopefulengineer]

Why doesn't the government just use eminent domain to buy out some Nimby's in crucial areas and build some high rise apartments? The housing issue is 100% supply and demand. If I could wave a magic wand and create 1,000,000 apartments in SF rent prices would drop.

I'm assuming there's political pressure from wealthy land lords who don't want their cash cow slain?

[ocschwar]

The problem isn't NIMBYs refusing to sell. It's NIMBYs writing the zoning rules so their neighbors can't sell to infill developers either.

Comapre to Massachusetts. We have a law against snob zoning. So while there is a homeless problem, we're making steady progress because of developers buying people out and building apartments. (Mind you're, they're mostly buying parking lots, gas stations, and mini strip malls and putting housing there. And nobody's eminent domaining anybody.)

[hoaw]

Because building isn't the core problem. It is that a large part of the population have a large part of the life savings in the housing market and therefor would take a loss if housing became affordable. It is like asking why the government can't make stocks fall.

If you could just do something there are a number of solutions to housing affordability. Building, zoning, public transport, taxes or mortgage regulation. None of these by themselves solve the actual problem.

[conanbatt]

> Because building isn't the core problem. It is that a large part of the population have a large part of the life savings in the housing market and therefor would take a loss if housing became affordable. It is like asking why the government can't make stocks fall.

Boo-hoo. Poor rich people.

[ImprovedSilence]

It's not necessarily rich people. Imagine spending waaay too much of your income on your house, not a huge house by any stretch of the imagination, something seen as average to small in the rest of the country. You bought the house because it was where family/you job/your life is. So a large part of your net worth is tied up in this house, for better or worse. You sure as hell don't want housing prices to go down, you'd loose your shirt, wouldn't be able to retire, etc etc. It's not all rich people with big houses wanting to keep the status quo, it's all the middle class that already bought in that would be financially devastated if housing dropped, good luck trying to get them to change the nimby mindset, they've been paying for (or you can see it as investing in) their desired lifestyle, and they are not about to give it up.

[conanbatt]

> magine spending waaay too much of your income on your house, not a huge house by any stretch of the imagination, something seen as average to small in the rest of the country.

Then sell it and stop being that person. There's no obstacle. The interests of the landlords financial situation requires no extra care, let alone at the expense of tax payers or citizens at large.

Everyone person that buys a house is responsible for that decision, and punishing renters to protect them is straight up poor payers for the rich.

[chrisdhoover]

Thank you, the grandparent comment isn’t helpful and shows a lack of understanding.

[yostrovs]

The "government" is the same people that live in those single family house and they like that their value is 10 times what it was 20 years ago

[zanny]

Irony is that if Cali curtailed its absurd zoning laws and codes those single family houses would be worth 100x more overnight once developers can replace them with 50 stories of condos. If most of Cali rezoned a hundred billion dollars of development capital would flood the state and leave all the NIMBYs incredibly rich.

The only case where property values would drop is if you were in an area that exists unnaturally due to how low density the city core is. The trick is though if California ever fixed this problem the immense influx of capital investment, job creation, and migration pressure since the economy would be kicked into overdrive would drive those property values back up and way higher than the currently crippled density environment can allow. It might take longer than some owners are comfortable with (ie, decades) but considering how much growth Cali sees while stabbing itself in its own foot I'd imagine almost any currently developed and commutable single family home in any major metro area of the state would be worth twice what it is now in 30 years (adjusted for inflation) if they allowed unlimited building because the manic development you would see would drive density up in all directions of city cores for miles around each year.

[chrisdhoover]

Your argument makes sense. I wonder what the carrying capacity for California is. The once excellent drinking water in San Francisco is now foul as the pristine Hetch Hetchy source is diluted with ground water to compensate for diversion to neighboring towns.

[prolikewh0a]

They wouldn't build 1 million apartments, for one, Apartments would likely be built at a slower rate than people moving there. Two, as seen in Seattle, only housing for the already wealthy is built. There is tons of demand for low income housing, but no supply because it doesn't make as much profit (if any) so there's no incentive for capitalists to house low income people and the cycle keeps going.

Before I moved into my current place, I was in low income HUD subsidized housing. It was a brand new building with rent control. Rent control worked great, but the owners didn't keep their side of the promise. Maintenance took months, all amenities we paid for were broken, access to the garage to store our vehicles was broken for 4+ months, elevators were broken for months at a time.

There is no way to get people to freely build affordable housing in or around larger cities under this current system.

[amluto]

I don’t really buy this. If you build enough market-rate housing to satisfy demand, then the price of older, less nice, formerly for-the-wealthy housing stock will become considerably less expensive.

[chrisdhoover]

You can see it in the used car market. Low income folks drive around in very old Lexuses. Smart move.

[amluto]

I used to drive around in an old ‘91 Lexus LS400. It was a fantastic car. I still see that generation of LS400 on the roads :)

[curiouscats]

> There is no way to get people to freely build affordable > housing in or around larger cities under this current system.

This is largely true but needs more qualifiers. There are non-profits that have done this successfully in cooperation with federal and local governments for the long term, for example Arlington Housing Corporation

  https://www.ahcinc.org/

They created a business model that works and are staffed with people that are happy to take the combination of salary and pride in what they accomplish.

Like many business models it is often a challenge to pull off successfully and attempts to make it work without the right combination of people with the right skills, motivation, long term vision, persistence... will fail.

[lettergram]

Even with eminent domain, you have to pay fair value for compensation. Plus, there are some clear guidelines California and the government setup for this. I don't believe there is precedent for building low cost housing in a safe, well-off, neighborhood (the kind that get people elected)

[claydavisss]

Exactly. There is absolutely no way anyone sane would want to live in a society where eminent domain is free and easy. Today its funny because they are tearing down some NIMBY mansion, but tomorrow they are tearing down your house. In the end, you realize you have created a society in which the same people who run BART can wake up in the morning and just decide your house is getting demolished "for justice".

Thats how revolutions start. Be sure to do a door-to-door inspection for firearms before tearing down someone's house without their consent.

OR, people in the Bay Area can MOVE. Why can't you move?

[masonic]

  Why can't you move?

Because losing one's Prop 13 taxation rate is a huge hit. Vote for Prop 5 so that the rate savings is portable throughout CA, and lots of Bay area homeowners will mive gladly to cheaper areas, freeing up housing.

[chrisdhoover]

Property rights are fundamental to the success of the country. Keto was a big mistake.

[xienze]

> If I could wave a magic wand and create 1,000,000 apartments in SF rent prices would drop.

Yeah but the problem is you can’t. Additional capacity always comes in onesie-twosie, not fast enough to outstrip the seemingly limitless demand to live in the area. Put up a couple thousand unit high rises? Big deal, won’t affect prices one bit, they’ll get snapped up before breaking ground. You really would have to build a million units all at once to do anything, and logistically you can’t.

[dragonwriter]

> Why doesn't the government just use eminent domain to buy out some Nimby's in crucial areas and build some high rise apartments?

Because the mechanism by which NIMBYism works is democratic control of the relevant governments, not a few hold outs refusing to sell out to a government-approved development (because if there was a such a development, it would use eminent domain from the outset, so such resistance would fail.)

[claydavisss]

Do you own a car? There are plenty of homeless without transportation. Can we rip the keys out of your hand? Don't worry about the fact that you paid for it, this is for justice! We'll pay you a "fair market value" - 10% of its original price.

Eminent domain isn't so much fun when its your stuff is it?

[claydavisss]

Where does the government get the money to buy out all of these owners? Or are you proposing just throwing a wrecking ball through someone's home without compensation?

And these one million new apartments...where shall they get their water to drink or send their waste water? Where will these people park? What highway will they use?

[anonuser123456]

Typically, eminent domain is only applied when there are buyers waiting in the wings (developers), so financing isn't so much an issue. You issue some 5 year bonds to float it and you're done.

[claydavisss]

You're missing the ten years of lawsuits. Eminent domain cases have gone to the SCOTUS.

[walshemj]

Which would then be snapped up by speculators just as in London.