NIMBYS now kneecapping UC system

[woolfe9998]

You have provided no evidence that this is true. You've repeated it over and over but that doesn't make it true.

Give me a break.

Bay Area Homelessness | Bay Area Council Economic Institute

www.bayareaeconomy.org

The Bay Area has the third largest population of people experiencing homelessness (28,200) in the U.S., behind only New York City (76,500) and Los Angeles (55,200), according to Point-in-Time counts.

 

[fskimospy]

So you've chosen the path of being intentionally obtuse, very well.


See the problem with your statement now? You have provided no evidence for making this connection.

Zoning increases housing costs.

The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability — Zell/Lurie Real Estate Center

realestate.wharton.upenn.edu

The primary reason for homelessness is the inability to afford housing.

Basic Facts About Homelessness: New York City - Coalition For The Homeless

Basic facts about homelessness in New York City, including the number of people staying in shelters in the city.

www.coalitionforthehomeless.org

I hope this clears the matter up for you.

 

[IronWing]

/facepalm. They are not 'sponging' off anything - the value of the amenities nearby is already priced into the land acquisition price. The people who 'paid for the park' get paid out when they sell the property they own near it. Then the new residents pay taxes to maintain the existing parks and build new ones, the same way cities have always functioned.

Did you think any of this through?

The developers are certainly sponging off the neighbors when they increase density without paying for the additional park space to meet community needs as that need increased as a result of the developers' project. Your claim that it is the new residents that will pay for the new parks is partially true but the neighbors will also be paying for the new parks, an expense that only exists because of the new development. Requiring the developers to bear the cost of the new park puts the cost back on the participants in the new development: the developer and the new residents.

 

[Zorba]

With housing, that ends up being a big problem since entrenched interests work to keep out future residents. That's why zoning should be moved to the state level and away from hyperlocal control.

I agree, as metros grow there needs to become metro level government. Not sure states should be handling zoning maps, but they should change some of the rules that are abused.

 

[Zorba]

Well in many ways I agree with them. I have no problem with requiring developers to pay for any expansion of infrastructure required to serve their project like new electric/water/gas lines or whatever but communities frequently abuse the development approval process to get them to pay for other infrastructure that's at best tangentially related to their project and that's wrong. NYC does this shit all the time - saying if you want to add another 10 floors to your town in midtown Manhattan you have to say, build a public park. Why?? What the fuck does that have to do with building housing?

It's another reason why I think permitting should be by-right - it gets the corruption of the approval process out of the way where cities make zoning more restrictive than they actually plan on using and then use variances to shake people down.

You don't see how having public parks relates to quality housing?

A big development here had to put in massive detention ponds. There was adjacent city property. They worked a deal to the detention pond on the city property and build a very nice park and soccer fields at bottom. Works out for everyone, and the people that live in their apartments now have good green space to use.

 

[fskimospy]

The developers are certainly sponging off the neighbors when they increase density without paying for the additional park space to meet community needs as that need increased as a result of the developers' project. Your claim that it is the new residents that will pay for the new parks is partially true but the neighbors will also be paying for the new parks, an expense that only exists because of the new development. Requiring the developers to bear the cost of the new park puts the cost back on the participants in the new development: the developer and the new residents.

Homeowners in new developments are almost always paying substantially more in taxes than existing homeowners in the same area as they usually have to be higher income to afford the same house after existing residents jacked the prices up with exclusionary zoning policies. Anyone buying a Manhattan condo is without a doubt paying far, far more in taxes than they are consuming in public services. For example the median apartment sold in Manhattan was about $1.3 million, which of course is mostly old units. At that price (which in reality is higher for new development) the tax cost will be roughly $40,000 per unit but for new development it's probably more like $50,000-$60,000 per unit.

So not only are the new residents providing the city and state with millions in taxes just by purchasing the place, they will then provide well above average tax revenue for the duration of their stay. The idea that they are somehow mooching off the established community is myopic, ignorant nonsense.

 

[IronWing]

Homeowners in new developments are almost always paying substantially more in taxes than existing homeowners in the same area as they usually have to be higher income to afford the same house after existing residents jacked the prices up with exclusionary zoning policies. Anyone buying a Manhattan condo is without a doubt paying far, far more in taxes than they are consuming in public services. For example the median apartment sold in Manhattan was about $1.3 million, which of course is mostly old units. At that price (which in reality is higher for new development) the tax cost will be roughly $40,000 per unit but for new development it's probably more like $50,000-$60,000 per unit.

So not only are the new residents providing the city and state with millions in taxes just by purchasing the place, they will then provide well above average tax revenue for the duration of their stay. The idea that they are somehow mooching off the established community is myopic, ignorant nonsense.

Wait, are you claiming that, absent bullshit like Prop 13, that newer owners pay a higher tax rate than older owners for similar construction? Why aren't they appealing their assessments?

 

[fskimospy]

Wait, are you claiming that, absent bullshit like Prop 13, that newer owners pay a higher tax rate than older owners for similar construction? Why aren't they appealing their assessments?

Some personal advice - if you're going to accuse someone of being illiterate it's probably best to make sure you read what they write carefully for at least the next couple of days.

I said they were paying more in taxes, not more in property taxes. This is because, generally speaking, they will be of higher income than current residents in order to afford the zoning inflated values because while property taxes might be the same, the purchase price isn't. That means more in income tax, more in sales tax, etc. This is really just another example of the self-defeating qualities of NIMBYism where they say development will strain public services, etc. The guys moving into those new luxury condos are by and large net tax contributors so the city has more money per capita to use on that stuff, not less.

 

[Zorba]

No, the people who use the parks should pay for the parks, which is what they do with their tax dollars. This is common sense.

The developers are profiting by building more housing, something we desperately need. We need to encourage this, not add random strings to projects that drive up the cost.

Parks are infrastructure. Waiting for taxes could take 10 years to get a new park built. Or you can make a developer put one in to improve the quality of their development. People might welcome more density of it was clearly improving the community.

 

[fskimospy]

Parks are infrastructure. Waiting for taxes could take 10 years to get a new park built. Or you can make a developer put one in to improve the quality of their development. People might welcome more density of it was clearly improving the community.

That sounds like a case for reviewing municipal land use and construction policy, not a case for demanding apartment buildings also build random town amenities.

Let's let the house builders focus on building houses and the municipal governments that are supposed to be in charge of public works like this be in charge of public works. I get WHY towns do this - they can get free stuff that is no cost to existing residents - but all it's doing is making the housing problem worse. This is penny wise and pound foolish.

 

[Zorba]

Some personal advice - if you're going to accuse someone of being illiterate it's probably best to make sure you read what they write carefully for at least the next couple of days.

I said they were paying more in taxes, not more in property taxes. This is because, generally speaking, they will be of higher income than current residents in order to afford the zoning inflated values because while property taxes might be the same, the purchase price isn't. That means more in income tax, more in sales tax, etc. This is really just another example of the self-defeating qualities of NIMBYism where they say development will strain public services, etc. The guys moving into those new luxury condos are by and large net tax contributors so the city has more money per capita to use on that stuff, not less.

This is massively influenced by location. Outside of a handful of cities, SFH income is much higher than apartment income.

 

[woolfe9998]

Homeowners in new developments are almost always paying substantially more in taxes than existing homeowners in the same area as they usually have to be higher income to afford the same house after existing residents jacked the prices up with exclusionary zoning policies. Anyone buying a Manhattan condo is without a doubt paying far, far more in taxes than they are consuming in public services. For example the median apartment sold in Manhattan was about $1.3 million, which of course is mostly old units. At that price (which in reality is higher for new development) the tax cost will be roughly $40,000 per unit but for new development it's probably more like $50,000-$60,000 per unit.

So not only are the new residents providing the city and state with millions in taxes just by purchasing the place, they will then provide well above average tax revenue for the duration of their stay. The idea that they are somehow mooching off the established community is myopic, ignorant nonsense.

Uh yeah, you didn't even mention Prop 13 here. All new homes carry property taxes based on their value at the time the home was built. Existing property owners pay taxes based on the value of the home when they bought it, which could be decades ago. My parents were paying 1.1% of $70K, which was the value of their home when Prop 13 passed in 1977. They were paying this when the house was worth $1.5 million. In CA, all new homes carry substantially higher property taxes than existing homes. If they want money for a new park, they can get it from the premium taxes being paid by the new residents.

 

[fskimospy]

This is massively influenced by location. Outside of a handful of cities, SFH income is much higher than apartment income.

You're right it is massively influenced by location, but in the locations hardest hit by the housing crisis where zoning policy really matters this diverges because essentially all new home buyers of any type are paying way more than people who have been there for any length of time. LA home prices have well more than doubled in the last 10 years and from a quick check a single family home was only commanding about a 20-25% premium over a condo, meaning any new apartment buyer is likely paying much more than a SFH buyer from not very long ago.

 

[MrSquished]

I have yet to see an ultra nimby propose any solution to the housing crisis.

Also this goes way beyond just homeless people. We are talking about people paying way too much of their income to housing in order to survive. That is millions more.

But nimby's that propose no solutions just don't give a shit apparently.

 

[IronWing]

Some personal advice - if you're going to accuse someone of being illiterate it's probably best to make sure you read what they write carefully for at least the next couple of days.

I said they were paying more in taxes, not more in property taxes. This is because, generally speaking, they will be of higher income than current residents in order to afford the zoning inflated values because while property taxes might be the same, the purchase price isn't. That means more in income tax, more in sales tax, etc. This is really just another example of the self-defeating qualities of NIMBYism where they say development will strain public services, etc. The guys moving into those new luxury condos are by and large net tax contributors so the city has more money per capita to use on that stuff, not less.

So you contrived an analysis in attempt to divert from the fact that neighbors pay for the externalities of new development unless a city explicitly puts the cost on the developer.

 

[IronWing]

I have yet to see an ultra nimby propose any solution to the housing crisis.

Also this goes way beyond just homeless people. We are talking about people paying way too much of their income to housing in order to survive. That is millions more.

But nimby's that propose no solutions just don't give a shit apparently.

I already provided a solution: build more houses. Also, addressing income inequality would go a long way toward solving the problem.

 

[MrSquished]

I already provided a solution: build more houses. Also, addressing income inequality would go a long way toward solving the problem.

You've only provided a solution to build more housing farther and farther away from where people need to be to work and provide services, which are our established metro areas, and just continue to print sprawl. It's just not a workable solution.

 

[Zorba]

Uh yeah, you didn't even mention Prop 13 here. All new homes carry property taxes based on their value at the time the home was built. Existing property owners pay taxes based on the value of the home when they bought it, which could be decades ago. My parents were paying 1.1% of $70K, which was the value of their home when Prop 13 passed in 1977. They were paying this when the house was worth $1.5 million. In CA, all new homes carry substantially higher property taxes than existing homes. If they want money for a new park, they can get it from the premium taxes being paid by the new residents.

Does Prop 13 fix the mileage too? I thought it only limited the maximum increase in valuation?

 

[fskimospy]

So you contrived an analysis in attempt to divert from the fact that neighbors pay for the externalities of new development unless a city explicitly puts the cost on the developer.

No, I showed how new development is a large net tax boost for the area. If you care about who is paying, this should eliminate your concerns.

 

[IronWing]

No, I showed how new development is a large net tax boost for the area. If you care about who is paying, this should eliminate your concerns.

I'm not comforted. In fact, I think your analysis is silly. Do high income persons not buy existing housing stock?

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not comforted. In fact, I think your analysis is silly. Do high income persons not buy existing housing stock?

Gee, I am shocked that you still hold on to yet another ludicrous idea about development.

Speaking of ludicrous ideas, any thoughts about your claim that increasing the supply of houses is good for those speculating on housing price increases?

 

[IronWing]

Gee, I am shocked that you still hold on to yet another ludicrous idea about development.

That's what I thought.

 

[Moonbeam]

Honestly, the democratic process at the community level touted here is bullshit screen: the people that would benefit most from more housing in desirable communities don't get represented; their views only get represented if there is some magnanimous land owner already living in that community.

The capitalist system is built on selfishness but lets not address that. What you and @fskimospy are saying is that you know better than other people and things should be done according to your views and not what others in their selfish blindness think. So what we need then is to resurrect Hitler and have him build us a Volks Haus.

 

[dank69]

The capitalist system is built on selfishness but lets not address that. What you and @fskimospy are saying is that you know better than other people and things should be done according to your views and not what others in their selfish blindness think. So what we need then is to resurrect Hitler and have him build us a Volks Haus.

JFC

 

[fskimospy]

The capitalist system is built on selfishness but lets not address that. What you and @fskimospy are saying is that you know better than other people and things should be done according to your views and not what others in their selfish blindness think. So what we need then is to resurrect Hitler and have him build us a Volks Haus.

You’re doing a better job of exposing how ridiculous your opinion is than I could ever do.