Proposed CA law tells cities: Build more, or we’ll do it for you

Re:Proposed CA law tells cities: Build more, or we’ll do it ... by jedberg on Saturday December 10, 2016 @03:06AM (#13144671)

NIMBY is a huge problem. I live in Cupertino, and we just defeated a couple of bills that would have allowed a nine story high rise of apartments right next to the freeway.

In this particular case most people opposed it because they didn't want a nine story building. I didn't actually mind, even though I would literally live in it's shadow.

But I voted against it too because the they were apartments, not condos, which means that they will send their kids to the schools but not pay for them. Actually worse, their rent would have been higher because of the schools, but the schools would never see any of that money since apartments don't pay parcel taxes, which is where a good chunk of the school funding comes from.

But my main point is that almost all of my neighbors opposed it because "they don't want high density housing to ruin the neighborhood".

I hate to break it to these people, but they said the same thing in the 1960s when their houses were being built.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Proposed CA law tells cities: Build more, or we’ll do it ... by freehunter on Saturday December 10, 2016 @10:07AM (#13145931)

>I hate to break it to these people, but they said the same thing in the 1960s when their houses were being built.

This was an issue in my city recently too. People didn't want a medium-density condo project to go in, and the mayor came out and said "I lived here when your houses were built and people said the same thing... you wouldn't be here if we didn't build them".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Proposed CA law tells cities: Build more, or we’ll do it ... by crdoconnor on Saturday December 10, 2016 @09:50AM (#13145851)

>"they don't want high density housing to ruin the neighborhood".

In all likelihood they probably just don't want more supply driving down prices.

If you've got a $1 million mortgage on a $1.4 million bungalow you're not exactly going to be pleased if the housing crisis comes to an abrupt end and you're plunged deep into negative equity.

There seems to be some tiptoeing around this elephant when it comes to the politics of land development though.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Proposed CA law tells cities: Build more, or we’ll do it ... by shostack on Saturday December 10, 2016 @07:29AM (#13145367)

So whomever actually owns the apartments that get rented pays no parcel tax?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Proposed CA law tells cities: Build more, or we’ll do it ... by jedberg on Saturday December 10, 2016 @12:37PM (#13146753)

They pay a single parcel tax instead of one per home like the rest if us.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Proposed CA law tells cities: Build more, or we’ll do it ... by countingteeth on Saturday December 10, 2016 @10:36PM (#13149465)

You are part of the problem. In fact, you are the problem. You know, tenants have rights too, they pay taxes, and as a rule they tend to pay more taxes and get less break for it than homeowners, especially in California, where incumbent homeowners are protected from tax increases.

The property is taxed; the landlord pays the tax directly, the tenants absorb this cost in their rent.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Proposed CA law tells cities: Build more, or we’ll do it ... by jacobolus on Saturday December 10, 2016 @08:21AM (#13145522)

The people living there will all be working in the office space in Cupertino and nearby towns. It’s ridiculous that all of these towns can add unlimited amounts of new office space, without likewise building any new places for the workers to live.

[ Parent | on HN ]