It sounds to me like you're the one purposely changing the definition to discredit them. It's obvious from social cues that they're not using a strict legal definition.
I'm not trying to discredit them at all. I think the question of patents and trolls is a very important one. It's worth making sure we are not confusing the seriously awful behavior of patent trolls _exploiting_ the system with the intended functioning of the system.
(We can have a rousing debate about whether the intended functioning is something we think is societally advantageous or not, but the changes to that are different than the fixes we need to prevent patent trolls from causing so much harm.)
Principled is a way of making it sound less terrible than 'restrained'. California is a perfect example of what happens when you let environmentalists handle housing policy, the poor suffer because environmentalism is classism in disguise in these social contexts.
This is literally the exact opposite of what an environmentalist would want in terms of urban growth and planning. Environmentally friendly planning means you have housing near where people work to avoid highly polluting long commutes.
The problem is NIMBY bullshit in the purest sense. People will use every excuse in the book to prevent new housing in their neighborhood. While a fair amount of the time environmental policies are abused to block development, zoning laws are also abused, parking/ land use legislation, hell I've seen houses blocked because they increase the shade in a park by 2% for half an hour during the evening.
None of this is "environmentalism", its rich people standing on a high hill screwing over everyone else beneath them.
It's not rational environmentalism, but I'm sure a lot of NIMBYs are honestly convinced they're fighting for Mother Earth, and the simultaneous explosive value increase of their home is purely coincidental.
Prop 13 and rent control both highly encourage NIMBYism and I would say are more important factors than property values. If a large apartment is built next to your house and you don't like the extra noise, the big shadow, and lots of people looking into your back yard, you could decide to move. Without prop 13 selling your house and moving a few blocks over to a location you like better is a pain in the ass and you have to pay off the realtors, but once you move, you just get on with your life. With prop 13 your property tax could double or triple, say going from $1000 a month to $3000 a month. This $2000 a month, every month, is going to make you mad and hurt you financially constantly for the rest of your life. No wonder people fight so hard to keep things like it was when they moved in.
People with rent control are under the same incentives. Have a $2000 rent controlled apartment that would rent for $4000? If something changes in your neighborhood the makes you want to move, you don't really have that option. So you fight really hard against changes.
The longer Prop 13 is around the worse it gets and California has just passed statewide rent control. Things will continue to get worse on this front and I don't see a way for California society to change the situation.
This is the problem. Prop 13 creates perverse incentives that are not obvious to owners in other states.
One doesn't need to live in California long before they see a community leaflet opposing a local housing development. These developments, on the surface, all look like great ideas. The stated reasons to oppose the permit all seem thin: Accusing the developer of greed, or claiming that traffic will get worse. Homes closer to work and a local discount store do increase traffic on surrounding streets but decrease cross-town traffic in the wider area. They might even encourage people to walk!
> California has just passed statewide rent control. Things will continue to get worse on this front and I don't see a way for California society to change the situation.
They did just change the situation. They made it worse!
This logic makes no sense and people like myself can afford to keep our houses mainly because of prop 13. Since buying my house almost 8 years ago the market has double at no fault of my own. This would double my taxes making a good portion unable to be written off thanks to new IRS rules. Yet, you want to call that locked-in? I love my house and where I live but it would be painful with that extra $2k a month tax bill you mentioned.
This is an unfortunate result of how California deals with property tax. In many places the property taxes go mostly/all to the school district and the city/county. When property values go up a lot there is no reason that they have to keep the property tax at the same rate. They could lower it to keep the expenditures the same. In some places they even just figure out a budget for the year and then set the property tax accordingly.
California property tax mostly goes to the state and it funds schools by giving money back to the local districts (except about 60 really rich ones that opted out!) based on the number of student days/school. I'm not really sure, but I think that prop 13 passed after the state started taking property tax money. That would make sense as people like to have control of how there taxes are spent.
When someone proposes a four plus one housing development around the corner from your house to help address the state's housing shortage, would you oppose it? You can't move if you don't like it, after all, since you'd lose your property tax break.
If you oppose such developments, then the higher value of your home _is your fault_.
Im in favor of any housing that makes sense but dont espouse the logic that just because someone wants to move to a town everyone has to agree to let giant apartment blocks get put up. I did indeed buy where Im at because I enjoyed the small town culture but I understand the need for managed growth. My town is already overwhelmed with infrastructure and water issues that poorly planned growth will exacerbate. There is a lot of land in Cali we dont all need to live on the coast. Being here is a privilege not a right and Im not being selfish wanting to keep that for which Ive worked hard.
Growth is inevitable ... Poorly planned cities are not. Just look at Daly city if you want to see the ugly side of unhindered housing expansion and poor infrastructure.
Further, your argument still doesnt engender the need to get rid of prop 13...
So youre for poorly planned cities or gentrification? The value of my property is simply that it is the house in which my family and I live. I gain no benefit from the market increase until I actually sell my house (I suppose there is financial wrangling that could be done but I dont have the money or time for that). Anyone that buys my house or any house in a high value area is going to be paying a higher tax rate simply based on the cost. Prop 13 insulates me from that and encourages/allows me to stay put while still setting the tax rate for all new purchases.
I will indeed resist poorly planned additions to my town and will insist on proper infrastructure in place before conceding to any mass buildings. Im not interested in living in an Oakland'esque place with ghost ships everywhere. Ill let you do that elsewhere.
Further, you still havent reasonably outlined how getting rid of prop 13 is going to fix things. There are plenty of wealthy people around to pay the taxes assessed on a home purchase ... plus, they can probably afford CPA's to dodge taxes otherwise. Youd be better off trying to fix the socioeconomic disparities so prevalent in our society ... and if you think eliminating prop 13 is going to help toward that end then I got a bridge in Arizona for ya ...
Each time you interact with anyone employed in your area, you should ask about their commute. There's a good chance that the staff who care for your children, the staff who stocks your groceries, the staff that cleans your workplace, all have soul-crushing commutes. Your "managed growth" policy forces _them_ to pay for your "small town culture" with their time. That's gentrification, by definition.
What makes you think I don't commute to afford being here? You still haven't addressed how making my property taxes double is going to encourage me to accept poorly planned building ... I'd argue I would be doubly against it.
Again, anyone that purchases a house now pays taxes on the market rate. People buy in my town not for jobs but for the culture and location ... If houses get cheaper here the wealthy will just buy two.
Now if you said something thoughtful like eliminate prop 13 for anything but primary household you might be onto something but otherwise you're failing to convince me.
You might also stress increasing minimum wages such as my town recently enacted. I'm curious if the obvious will happen: business that rely on ultra cheap labor will fold (which I'm ok with) and/or more workers will be attracted from further away (which I'm not ok with). I know Costco and Starbucks already pay a bit above state minimum and a large portion of the service industry folk I patronize are my town neighbors. Why do you have a problem with improving to middle class taste? I definitely prefer my neighbors not living in squalor.
Another point tho ... where I live doubling the taxes and pricing out those holding on with fingernails will only speed the gentrification. I would have no problem selling my house right now at market value and the buyers from the valley wouldnt bat an eye at the taxes ... not even including the foreign buyers coming in to hide the peoples squandered moneys. Prop 13 aids those like myself by keeping us out of the market loop ... I feel no pressure to sell and have no interest in buying again.
Prop 13 does keep you in that home, true, but a more stable home value would also keep taxes low. One way to keep home values low is to build high-density housing in the area. Such projects are opposed by local home owners in California.
Yeah, the lock-in effect of both Prop 13 and rent control deserve a lot more awareness!
Reminds me of what I've heard about working in the academic world: Since people often have a job for life, workplace conflict can't be resolved as everywhere else, where someone switches job or gets fired. Instead people make each other's life hell forever.
Just a story I've heard, I have no personal experience. But I've heard it several times.
GP: Curse those environmentalists
Parent: This obviously isn't environmentally friendly or motivated and the opposite of what an environmentalist would want.
You: Well, they believe they're being environmental, even if it's self serving BS (here, let define self-serving BS).
Yes, people talking self serving nonsense are lying. But they're primarily lying to themselves!
When we're talking this kind of phenomena, we certainly using language at a very high level of abstraction. But the "color" of how one expresses one's self matters even more. What "primary" means here is key, for example.
People talking self-serving nonsense often believe what they're saying, maybe more than someone taking a rational position ('cause rationality involves some self doubt).
The main question, in a sense is "are these people 'out to get us'?". On the one hand, one can give the defense, "they aren't consciously trying to put their interests ahead of yours and aren't trying to deceive you" but there's the other factor that this sort of strategy can be the very best strategy for people putting their interests ahead of you and /or deceiving you, which makes them your most effective enemies.
I mean, if you dig deep down, the terrible people "are victims too". Does that mean you shouldn't blame them? Well, the terrible people need to be defeated and punished appropriately, in a judgmental way, to prevent them from doing the stuff we don't like and to fill those who might consider it with fear (still non-judgmentally).
> On the one hand, one can give the defense, "they aren't consciously trying to put their interests ahead of yours and aren't trying to deceive you"
Almost. There needs to be a "consciously" before each "trying".
Because they are trying to deceive you, but the conscious part of their (or, just as much, our) mind doesn't know it.
It helps to think of the brain as dozens of more or less independent units, most of which are unconscious.
The common metaphor is:
If you think of the brain as something like the White House, the conscious part ("me") assumes it is the President. In reality it is the Press Secretary, tasked with coming up with arguments for why what the real decision makers decided is a great idea.
Ah, so exactly what happened with Hong Kong and their public housing. Blocked by homeowners who don't want their real estate to go down in value. Now it's one of the most expensive place in the world with New Territory largely empty.
Property owner cabals blocking development like this is cartel capitalism at the local level. What you have here is a cartel restricting supply to profit from scarcity.
>Environmentally friendly planning means you have housing near where people work to avoid highly polluting long commutes.
Vehicle miles driven doesn't make as big of a difference as one might expect. A paper[0] I saw linked on reddit had an interesting graph: https://imgur.com/a/n7u8fGH
In this paper, what carbon emissions you lose by not driving you gain from building emissions. Maybe because the study area was New York, with more fuel oil-heated buildings? Presumably, decarbonized heating and electricity generation would make a difference, but New York state already is pretty good by that metric: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/newyork/ (Though nowhere near carbon neutral, or carbon negative, as would be required for keeping global warming to 2C)
---
0: Andrews, C. J. (2008). Greenhouse gas emissions along the rural-urban gradient. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640560802423780 If you don't want to buy the PDF, then visit the crow site.
I think you missed the central point of this paper. It's true that there is an offsetting factor of building energy use vs. VMT, but the reality remains that denser environments, with jobs near residents, emit less per capita -- as that graph you linked to shows.
What's surprising is that at the other end of the spectrum, in rural (not sub-urban) areas, other factors (forests, etc.) combine to cause lower per-capita emissions than suburbs (and in some cases, negative per-capita emissions because of sequestration).
Basically, from a carbon-emissions perspective, post-war suburbs are unsurprisingly worst, rural areas get some help from sequestration in forests (this fact being the contribution of the paper), and dense urban environments are the least-emitting.
I think part of the problem of this graph is that it attributes commercial building emissions to the municipalities in which they are placed, even though these buildings might be used by residents and commuters alike.
So if you move into the city instead of commuting, you might be using the same commercial buildings a before, but their emissions are suddenly attributed to you.
>California is a perfect example of what happens when you let environmentalists handle housing policy, the poor suffer because environmentalism is classism in disguise in these social contexts.
Most of the environmentalists that I know are very much in favor of increasing housing density and reducing commute time in ICE vehicles. Current housing policy does neither of these things.
Yes, it may be selfish, but for environmentalists it is selfish and hypocritical. I'm specifically looking at the wealthy, anti-growth, green community on the SF Peninsula.
There are plenty of hypocrites on both sides of the isle. Lots of people who claim to be against regulation... unless it's on their block. People who are environmentalists... unless it means there will be an apartment complex put up next door blocking their view. People who are pro-growth and pro-business... unless it's in their neighborhood. People who are for making housing more affordable, etc etc etc.
So-called environmentalists don't have a monopoly on hypocrisy, it's pretty much universal.
Yet some people vote for representatives who approve measures like SB50, and others vote for representatives who reject them. That is the dividing line that matters. How they vote, and invest time and money to influence other people’s vote, is what determines who is a hypocrite.
You should get to know the other group of environmentalists who aren't wealthy, are pro-density, and are less likely to live in the peninsula (although I'm sure they exist there too). There are a lot more of them, so it shouldn't be hard!
Because by definition, they hardly represent the majority of pro-density advocates. If the GP has common cause with YIMBY urbanist environmentalists, then by numbers they are in good company.
The anti local density environmental crowd might represent more dollars, though. That's perhaps the issue.
I suspect, however that the divide is more generational. For the older generation, environmentalism was far more about preserving local wildlands and the wildlife in your backyard. The environmental problems that face the younger generation are far larger in scope and far more deeply intertwined with questions about how we power society.
Selfish is the wrong word I think, people are myopic about density and assume its inevitably a negative. A number of cities have shown that's not the case.
Paris is shaped like a snail and concentric circles of density and affluence with the inner most circle being most affluent.
Paris also has a stellar and reliable public transport system and is very walkable. Bay Area wants the density (and property taxes inflow) but don’t want to invest in infrastructure and public transport.
> Bay Area wants the density (and property taxes inflow)
They already have sufficient density and property prices to actually invest in infrastructure. The problem has always been Prop 13 and the artificial limits placed on taxes that would otherwise fund infrastructure locally.
It’s not artificial limits. Including special taxes, it averages out to 1.25. It’s on par with other places. What happened was that housing and economy skyrocketed within a very short period of time. Foreigners are allowed to invest in the housing market for speculative purposes. The extra tax income is used to fund public schools. More immigration and younger people having kids. And overall death rate slowing down. And that means publicl employees pension funds. Looking up unfunded pension liabilities is a good idea.
Also..why should everyone feel like owning a home is a right? You can always rent. In fact, it’s a better economic decision because renters take advantage of best school districts within dealing with the hassle of home ownership. People buy property as an investment that is like an speculative asset these days. Homes should be a dwelling. There will always be those who have appreciating assets and those who will inherit. Punitively punishing them with taxes is just irresponsible and will create more instability.
At the end of the day, most of this is noise. CA is better than most places in the USA..America is better than most places in the world. The govt needs to stop manufacturing dissent and focus on what they need to do and aren’t doing..public transportation would alleviate housing issues. Universal healthcare will help people live their lives and remove the pressure of working for insurance.
How many people in their 50s and 60s would rather not work and just retire but continue because they need to pay for insurance. If they are going to work in the Bay Area, why not live in a home they had bought decades ago?
But it doesn’t matter..with automation and AI, jobs are going to dwindle anyways. It’s best not to create Uber dense cities as they will not be needed when people experience unemployment. We should look towards some kind of universal basic necessities/services and health care rather than building more and imagining that jobs will
last forever. That’s just not going to happen. Period.
That’s very subjective. For example America ranks 143 out of 230 countries by murder rate. Economically, it’s better than average, but as a place to live it’s got serious issues.
That's largely true, but many parts of Paris itself are relatively working class (the 13th district, the 19th district) and still very dense.
Similarly while the outskirts of Paris don't have a subway system (they have the RER, akin to BART) they are still very dense.
Walkability comes from density almost inevitably because it's financially doable to have more stores/activities/restaurants in a smaller space while still getting customers. This makes walking around the city interesting.
I think the issues in the Bay Area cities I know relatively well (SF and SJ) comes down to political will to zone neighborhoods properly.
There is also some politically correct diversity quotas. In the bay areas, they think the local school teacher as well as Starbucks barista should be able to live in the same neighborhood as a FAANG millionaire. Naturally, this creates NIMBYs. It’s human nature.
I don't see anyone from the suburbs demanding to demolish Manhattan and turn it into farm land. Likewise I wouldn't demand to have housing built for me in a specific town instead of living elsewhere.
Maybe because that's where the best jobs are. Maybe because that's where they're from and it's not their fault they're getting priced out (gentrification). Maybe because they just really like the place. In any case, you don't get to be a gatekeeper. Cities are public.
CEQA requirements are exempt from affordable housing developments. And developing Coyote Valley has never been about affordable housing. Essentially all of the proposals to develop Coyote Valley have catered to high-income home owners and renters. Even the mayor said in that article that preserving Coyote Valley contributes to the city's affordable housing goals.
It all helps. Relieve the shortage in high-income housing, and maybe they'll stop bidding up the prices for (formerly) lower-income housing because they had to live somewhere.
While I don't doubt that is the case, I do think it's offset by the high-income housing people then buying a second or third property as investment (gotta be a landlord, or you just haven't made it, I guess). I wonder if there is real data on this?
This is exactly the problem! People aren't happy unless the housing being built is low income housing. Building materials aren't made out of class concious magic, a premium apartment might be higher quality but the same kinds of contractors can often be used. We can't spite the rich here, we need a solution that leverages the market. Build so much housing for the wealthy that the demand will be insufficient to sustain the supply and then let the builders move on to the middle before finally the lower class housing types. People want to see homeless and poor people being provided for, I get it. But people also want efficient spending and that means supplying the top first to incentivize the builders to move down chain.
Look at the track record of the SF Group of the Sierra Club. They consistent try to block dense urban development in the name is environmentalism. I went to their executive committee meetings for months, and even ran a failed campaign to unseat half the committee. They are very much part of the “preserve neighborhood character” and anti-density collation in SF politics.
Environmentalist support for density increases is only about 20 years old. When these policies were created, it was done by the previous generation of lawmakers.
Are Napa, Atherton, and Malibu filled with environmentalists?
I'm so confused by your reaction, are there specific housing policies that are focused on the environment that have had bigger effects than things like prop 13? or cities with 30k jobs in a year but 300 units of housing (looking at you, mountain view)?
I think their point is that environmental concerns are a convenient criticism when you don't want to come out and say "building adequate housing in my neighborhood threatens to slightly slow the growth in value of the investment I have decided to dump my entire net worth into"
I think speaks more to the average lot size. The surrounding towns are also mostly single family homes as well. They're just subdivided into smaller plots. But lot size restrictions are a factor of zoning laws.
Friend sent me an old ad for lots in the east bay. The developer was saying they were only selling 50 foot lots. No 25 foot lots! If you look on the map now all the lots have 50 feet of street frontage. If you look at San Francisco they are mostly 25 feet.
The ads date is 1913.
That makes me rethink how much zoning is about muni's forcing developers to do things. And how much of zoning is actually regulatory capture. Developers have always been pushing as much lux as the market and technology can bear. And home owners that are all in try to protect their investment in class distinction.
The endangered species act probably had 10x the effect on stifling building as Prop 13. Can you imagine a project like Foster City happening in the current environment?
While Environmentalism is definitely classist, and CEQA has played a part in preventing affordable development in cities, there are so many other factors that boiling it down to environmentalism is absurd.
If anything, CEQA and other environmental regulations have contributed more to improving the quality of life for working class people and the poor than it has contributed to their detriment. California is the median for poverty in the US and also happens to be in the top 15 for quality of life while also being in the top 10 most environmentally friendly states. Because of that, I don't see a correlation between environmentalism and poverty.
Fair enough, but even considering that, the other states at the top of the list are a grab bag consisting of some of the worst states in terms of environmental regulations. My point is that there is no absolute correlation with environmentalism and poverty.
The article says that SB 50 was supported by environmentalist groups.
>The bill also garnered support from environmental organizations, including Natural Resources Defense Council and California PIRG, because of its potential to reduce the carbon pollution that comes from long driving commutes.
Most environmentalists are in favor of increased density. The opposition is more NIMBYs who either don't want their neighborhood to ever change, don't want poor people anywhere near them, or want their house value to go up.
By “principled,” I mean that the RHNA sends the signal from the state government to the local governments of the state interest (regional quantity of housing to promote housing affordability and availability), while preserving local control over legitimate local concerns, which is what the opposition to SB 50 wanted. It makes sense theoretically; it just doesn’t work in practice due to the lowballed numbers and long time frames.
It's what happens when you let homeowners form a cartel and vote on how much new housing to create (and thus how much to dilute their own home's worth by). Environmentalism has nothing to do with it.
