Comment by SilverElfin
2 days ago
HN has one particular view, which is to keep increasing density without care for any other factor. But density does change neighborhoods and quality of life in many negative ways, including the example you shared. Someone may get to move into that area at a lower price. But someone else loses what they had. I don’t understand why those who demand lower priced housing are more valid. And too often, the response here is to attack anyone who brings up the negatives of high density living (edit: here come the oh-so-predictable downvotes). I suspect that is partly ideological, and partly due to age skewing younger here. But I wish there was more tolerance for mid-size towns that don’t get density forced on them, but can stay a healthy balanced size because that’s what the locals want to hold onto for their own quality of life.
The people who want small, mid-sized towns are free to live literally anywhere they want outside major metro areas. There's 90+% of the state by land area left to them.
This discussion is and has always been centered around the housing crisis in urban centers, where it's been illegal to build density for decades. This has caused issues where those urban centers can't afford for people to provide critical services ( like teachers, laborers, medical staff, social services workers, etc) because housing simply doesn't exist at a price they can afford. Unless the suggestion is to make do with crumbling community services, housing reform is mandatory.
> The people who want small, mid-sized towns are free to live literally anywhere they want outside major metro areas.
This is what I was referring to, in terms of HN’s attitudes on this topic. Why should a “major metro area” change to accommodate newcomers? It should just stay serving its current residents, who may want it to stay the size it is. The ones desiring to live there at a price they can afford are the entitled ones. They could be the ones to choose to live “anywhere they want outside major metro areas”. Major metro areas also don’t just come in one size. There are larger cities and smaller ones, denser ones and less dense ones. And it is perfectly valid to want a smaller one.
As I explained in the previous post, it causes issues because it results in people who would otherwise fill jobs providing critical services to the community like teaching either moving to cheaper areas or switching careers entirely. This article mentions several of the cities impacted by SB 79:
https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/teachers-str...
Are you arguing that large urban areas shouldn't have schools and vet offices? Because that's where we've been heading absent meaningful housing reform.
Normally, this situation would result in wages rising, but there's a few issues.
1) The scale of the shortage is so severe that demand far outstrips supply, which means price-based solutions simply result in high wage earners taking all of the available supply.
2) Prices are rising faster than wages.
3) These industries don't have the cost basis to compete with high wage earners. Are you happy with your local vet prices? Are you willing to triple or quadruple the education taxes you currently pay?
4) Even adjusted wages still cause fewer people to enter these industries from other parts of the US, or switch into more lucrative careers. That's socially problematic.
The state is passing laws to serve its current residents.
The state believes local control has not benefited Californians as a whole.
I happen to live in an expensive home in a dense area and I agree with the state.
Because "current residents" also include the children and teenagers currently living there? You act like young adults are 100% flown in by storks, as if the city doesn't itself procreate, as if school children doesn't grow up into young adults.
2 replies →
Major metro areas have overbuilt commercial properties and underbuilt residential properties because commercial properties provide much more (property and sales) tax revenue than residential properties.
This is anti-social, and puts the burden of housing all these workers on the rest of the region, as well as forcing the rest of the region to share transportation costs.
This is pretty obviously unfair. Why should poorer midsized towns and suburbs have to lose money so that large metro areas can maintain a housing density level that lets them cosplay as small towns while overbuilding commercial density?
I confess that this attitude infuriates me. How did these become major metro areas in the first place? You changed the quality of life in your neighborhood when you moved there. You don’t get to say “that’s it, stop here, it’s on its final, perfect form” any more than the previous residents were before you arrived.
> The people who want small, mid-sized towns are free to live literally anywhere they want outside major metro areas. There's 90+% of the state by land area left to them.
Whether good or bad, it's important to realize this is not true in California, with regard to these laws. They apply everywhere, not only in urban centers.
So if there are people who want small towns without dense development, that option has been taken away entirely.
I live in a tiny town (population < 10K) surrounded by forest, far from any urban center. An d even here some of the wooded areas are being clearcut to build dense apartments due to these laws.