Comment by api | Hacker News Reader

Comment by api | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

If California were well run, sure. Do something about the housing and homeless crisis and we’ll talk.

California doesn’t have a money problem. They have a lack of political will problem and an incompetence (or corruption) problem. The state is held hostage by NIMBYs and is chronically unable to build infrastructure. Look at the high speed train disaster for an example of the latter.

NIMBYs ensure that any money or effort put into the homeless problem is also wasted, as there is no affordable housing for these people to inhabit even if their mental health issues are dealt with.

More money won’t fix these things. It will probably go into the pockets of the people who created these problems.

Note that much of what I wrote applies to the USA broadly. We are taxed not much less than Canadians, but have the infrastructure and social services of a “developing” nation.

Give me either low taxes at e.g. Costa Rica levels OR shiny infrastructure, free college for my kids, and universal healthcare.

Oh wait Costa Rica has universal health care...

We are great at setting money on fire in this country.

> Do something about the housing and homeless crisis and we’ll talk

You do realize a wealth tax is one way to bring in income to try to fix these problems right? You guys don't even have universal healthcare in the middle of a global pandemic. Laughably sad.

It’s not possible to build any new housing in California. The vast majority of projects are blocked by the powerful landowner lobby. Throwing money at the homeless problem doesn’t help the homeless much and just pushes property values higher. The government and tax system of California is a perfectly designed instrument to transfer wealth from newcomers to homeowners.

you can build new housing in california. its just difficult to build affordable housing apartment complexes in the bay area and other affluent zipcodes.

california is huge. if they fixed transport problem(HST failed), we have plenty of space to build homes. its not like we are the australian bush or something..these are perfectly buildable areas..its just not san francisco or the bay area or wherever there is high density and everyone want to flock to the nicest place to live as cheaply as possible.

Is this satire? The current situation is the direct result of what you are recommending. California has tried to suburban sprawl our way out of our problems for 80 years. We have service workers commuting 4 hours a day, freeways at a standstill, and all those “buildable areas” that they have to bulldoze forests for get burned down every year.

you will get an answer if you delete the 'is this satire' beginning to your comment. because then, i will read the rest of it.

Change the law.

Can anyone remind me what the rich when ending this racket is on the ballot?

Homeowners are benefiting from these policies, at least in the short term, and statistically homeowners vote a lot more than renters or more transient residents.

At some point the most rational thing becomes to leave California if you are not a homeowner, or to never go there in the first place, and to geographically diversify the industries that are located there. All these things seem to be happening already. Ship may have sailed.

California already has one of the highest total tax rates in the world skimming from the top of the #5 GDP in the world. Lack of money is not the problem.

There’s plenty of tax revenue to fund nearly all such priorities. It’s sadly squandered, in large part because voters have ideological commitments to confiscation, and no such commitments to effective government.

The problem isn’t even an ideological commitment to confiscation. The problem is one of simple corruption and incompetence. Nobody is willing to confront bad urban planning, out of control NIMBYism, corruption in government contracting, etc.

More money won’t fix a broken government any more than more revenue fixes dying companies.

IMHO one of the roots of all evil was proposition 13, which created a kind of property owners caste with a vested interest in actually making the housing problem worse. From that flows the homeless crisis, as housing costs start at upper middle class income levels anywhere in the state that also has jobs.

The problem is that proposition 13 is a hole from which it would be really hard to dig the state out from. Any politician who challenges it is voted out instantly by the landed caste as well as by the financially vulnerable younger folks who over-leveraged themselves into unaffordable homes and would be ruined if housing fell.

The infrastructure problem is also partly related to the housing problem. Nobody dares change anything because it might pop the housing bubble.

Prop 13 was a Republican thing, which shows that this isn’t just a Democrat or “too much liberalism” problem. It’s deeper than that.

disagree. visible homelessness flows from drug addiction and mental illness. everyone else is unhappy not living in someone else's nice house that they think they deserve instead. its not because of NIMBYism. i support NIMBYs. if you dont care about your backyard, who will..its nuts to hand over your backyard to those who dont even live there. entirely irrational and illogical. do you expect some random stranger to run your house and manage your budget and take instructions from them? same thing.

> in large part because voters have ideological commitments to confiscation, and no such commitments to effective government.

I highly doubt it's that rather than the fact special interest are prioritized over 'effective government' in large parts due to some conservatives and neoliberals promoting the idea of corruption == freedom. When there's a thousand ways to legally bribe politicians, of course there's no incentive for effective government.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com