A court just gutted years of California's housing efforts

Re:A court just gutted years of California's housing efforts by jeremyjh on Wednesday November 02, 2022 @07:48PM (#33444530)

Prop 13 is not a national problem. In most parts of the country, municipal governments are incentivized to support residential housing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A court just gutted years of California's housing efforts by jmyeet on Wednesday November 02, 2022 @08:09PM (#33444786)

NIMBYism is a national problem. It just takes different forms in different places.

For example, in most of the US, it is illegal to build anything other than single-family homes ("SFHs"). This is NIMBYism and intentionally exclusionary. If you have minimum lot sizes and can only build an SFH on it, you're creating an economic barrier to people living there, usually under the guise of preserving the "character" of that commu8nity.

Likewise, most places are completely car-dependent. This too is intentionally exclusionary.

Even in built up areas like Manhattan, a lot of units are bineg built but they're heavily weighted towards the ultra-luxury segment (>$3,000/sq ft). There were tax incentives to build this ultra-luxury property (ie J-51).

Pretty much every facet of US housing is designed to limit supply and be exclusionary at the policy level.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A court just gutted years of California's housing efforts by wil421 on Thursday November 03, 2022 @06:10AM (#33449022)

> For example, in most of the US, it is illegal to build anything other than single-family homes ("SFHs").

This is a false statement and mostly applies to the west coast.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A court just gutted years of California's housing efforts by Akronymus on Thursday November 03, 2022 @08:42AM (#33450122)

> Likewise, most places are completely car-dependent. This too is intentionally exclusionary.

Which also results in unsustainable neighbourhoods. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0

[ Parent | on HN ]