Hacker News Reader

Comment by DoneWithAllThat | Hacker News Reader

So when and if this takes effect, what do self proclaimed YIMBYs think is going to happen to everything in these cities that aren’t housing? Schools, roads, grocery stores, public transit, parks, etc. Is the thinking that they’re just going to magically be expanded to meet the massively higher density than these areas were ever planned to built for?

View on HN

> So when and if this takes effect, what do self proclaimed YIMBYs think is going to happen to everything in these cities that aren’t housing?

They think that, as Santa Monica did, cities will quickly file compliant housing plans and get their zoning power back, with very few (compared to need or current size, not past pace of new development) builders remedy units, and after this initial round, cities won't play chicken with the law anymore.

No magic, just incentives driving city planning priorities.

Santa Monica had half its required units filed via builder's remedy, and my understanding is that it still has not got its zoning approved.

I mean, I don't think the YIMBY movement always speaks with a single voice, but I do think there's an understanding that infrastructure will have to keep up.

The thing is that in order to expand infrastructure, you need

- public pressure and demonstrated need for that expansion

- tax dollars to fund the expansion

and the quickest way to get both of those is... to build more homes and put people in them. I don't think there's any magic involved, just time and necessity.

Prop 13, the favourite legislation of NIMBYs, is the main reason why the infrastructure in California is lagging. Presumably more construction = more apartments = more tax = more infrastructure

The cities will have increased property taxes (at full rate, not 1978 rates) which they can use to expand services. It'll take a few years of pain, but that's the price cities like Santa Monica get to pay for trying to avoid doing their fair share.

> The cities will have increased property taxes (at full rate, not 1978 rates) which they can use to expand services.

No, the maximum property tax rate is much less than the 1978 rates under Prop 13 rate caps, which is the reason Prop 13 led to local government being dependent on state funding transfers.

You mean taxed based in full value for the first year, then decaying (as a share of full value) thereafter, because of the Prop 13 assessment increase limit to the lower of 2% or the rate of inflation. But maintenance cost increases over time aren't capped the way prooertt taxes are, even if property taxes were adequate to initially maintain infrastructure.

Yeah we have these things called markets and pricing mechanisms that incentivizes people to scale up to meet demand.

Eventually, yes. More housing will certainly create a reason for other services to expand where there was no reason to change before.

Yes.

King. Gigachad level response

Because suddenly overnight all the single family housing will be replaced with townhouses?

I live in Berkeley. Berkeley was originally zoned, when zoning was invented, for about a quarter million people. Berkeley has the water and sewer supply for this population. Berkeley has three subway stations that were planned to serve this population. But, in a reactionary spasm by White people suddenly faced with a rapidly growing Black population between 1950 and 1970, the city down-zoned itself in 1975, cutting the ultimate resident population capacity in half. We have an abundance of infrastructure and not enough people to exploit it or, crucially, to fund its maintenance.

The new larger tax base can have their taxes spent on schools, roads, and public transit. Also public transit benefits a lot from density so it should get more efficient per taxpayer, not less.

If a city still refuses to comply, they will just be shooting themselves in the foot.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com