15 Hacker News comments link this video. Each one links back to its thread.
pneillJul 2024Strongly recommends
Asking why there isn't enough housing is like asking why water is wet. The answer is state/local government regulation. There's an old saying "your margin is my opportunity" and I suspect that the current crop of homes that are built have decent margins, but in a deregulated market an entrepreneur could come in offer more affordable housing options with lower margins. You can see this in vehicles. Nobody complains about the vehicle affordability problem because there are far fewer regulations in the transportation industry (don't get me wrong, there are regulations, but not a constraining as you see in the housing market). There's a vehicle at every price point. You got bikes, then ebikes, mopeds, scoters, motorcycles, sub compacts, compacts, full size, trucks, suvs, and all the way to crazy expensive sports cars. You don't see that in house because affordable housing is not a good business. It's impossible to offer options at the lower end of the market because of zoning laws, environmental impact regulations, a difficult permitting process, nimby's, and affordable housing politicians that are really big proponents of affordable housing except "they have question about this particular housing project." Here is a terrific video that everyone should watch that shows how insanely difficult it is to make affordable housing. A ▶ this video Sometimes what you need is less government regulation, not more. edited sentence "You don't see that in house it's not a good business." to You don
in “U.S. now short 4.5M homes as housing deficit grows” · View on HN
pneillJun 2019Strongly recommends
Politics is a huge factor in the lack of affordable housing. Both legislation and concerns by citizen about how new housing will "change" a neighbor make it next to impossible to build higher density housing. Watch this video - it's eye opening ▶ this video
in “$1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes” · View on HN
pneillFeb 2020Recommends
It's very complicated. People have conflicting ideas - one the one hand, they want affordable housing (ie their rent to go down) or the other, not in my backyard. Worth a view The Insane Battle To Sabotage a New Apartment Building Explains San Francisco's Housing Crisis ▶ this video
in “California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build” · View on HN
ransom1538Jan 2019Recommends
"You can't have it both ways. Either change the city and build upwards or stop complaining about the price of living" Yes. Here is an awesome video documenting one persons struggle to create an apartment building: ▶ this video
in “SF restaurants are suffocating” · View on HN
brianpgordonJan 2019Recommends
Landlords, yes, but also people who think that new market rate housing will destroy the character of their neighborhoods, or something. Take it with a grain of salt because it's reason.com, but this video does do a good job of conveying a sense of how ridiculous the situation has gotten: ▶ this video
in “SF restaurants are suffocating” · View on HN
guywithahatFeb 2025Cites it
Is it the old people? It feels like it's the new, young people moving to the city that do this. When people do investigative reporting on the SF housing market, they find a bunch of people who have been spent 8 years trying to convert dilapidated buildings into an apartment complex, but have been getting blocked by environmental reports on what shadows the building will cast, or other bureaucratic nonsense. This is a famous video demonstrating that point; where even if you're rightfully zoned to do something, it can take years and years of fighting bureaucratic nonsense if you haven't bribed the right people ▶ this video
in “CEO Simulator: Startup Edition” · View on HN
Show 9 more comments
pauldentonNov 2023Cites it
▶ this video If only Californians didn't actively try to stop construction. If you want to build housing and that will cast a shadow on a nearby playground, that's no good. California is literally the worst and most expensive place to develop anything.
in “Only 15% of Californians can afford a home, new data shows” · View on HN
pauldentonSep 2023Cites it
It has to do more with regulatory burdens in Democrat strongholds ▶ this video Can't have your building cast a shadow on a school playground (you haven't paid bribes to the right city officials to get rid of their roadblocks)
in “Americans Can Barely Afford Homes” · View on HN
kwereMar 2023Cites it
Its the whole building over the laundromat, and its big enough. Reason did an article and video interviewing Bob Tillman[0], the owner, who has spent nearly 5 years and $1.4 million trying to convert his laundromat into new housing. [0] ▶ this video
in “How Californians Are Weaponizing Environmental Law to Eliminate Housing” · View on HN
ErikVandeWaterDec 2022Cites it
Counterpoint: NIMBYs in SF preventing development of new housing by even a small entrepreneur: ▶ this video Something tells me JP Morgan would have an even tougher time getting past the NIMBYs.
in “JPMorgan to spend $1B on rental homes in the US to become a megalandlord” · View on HN
major505Sep 2022Cites it
ReasonTV made a video about the laundromat case a few years ago. The video is from 2018, is 2022 and still the same problem persists. ▶ this video You wnat to make affordable house? Increase the demand. Is not that hard.
in “How San Francisco makes it insanely hard to build housing” · View on HN
ErikVandeWaterAug 2021Cites it
Another example: ▶ this video Politicians don't want private industry affordable housing because they don't get any credit for it. They rather have almost no housing for the less fortunate but the tiny bit that is affordable they get credit for.
in “One housing project epic battle in SF, where the real enemy is city red tape” · View on HN
ReedxJun 2019Cites it
> SF doesn't want to allow taller buildings and denser housing complexes. Pretty much. When I lived in SF I received fliers in the mail urging residents to oppose new apartment construction literally on the basis that it was too tall. If you want to see how difficult it is to build there, check out this story[1] of a laundromat owner who spent almost 5 years and $1.4 million attempting to convert to an apartment building. This is even though it was already zoned for housing, didn't have any units above it (wouldn't displace anyone) and eligible for streamlined approval since it was close to public transit. And yet... 1. ▶ this video
in “$1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes” · View on HN
manfredoMay 2019Cites it
> I read in the SF Chronicle that there’s permitted and approved projects that developers are not moving forward with, like around the new hospital off of Van Ness, due to the “tightening of capital markets” and “soaring construction costs.”[1] Not NIMBYs or government regulations. No doubt that construction costs exacerbate the problem. But there absolutely are people deliberately blocking housing construction. There was a proposition to outright block private housing construction in the Mission that got ~40% yes votes. For further examples, see the infamous case of the developer that wanted to replace a laundromat with an apartment building: ▶ this video > And then I dig a little deeper into the “it’s just supply and demand, dummy” narrative and find articles that document how luxury housing development actually is associated with a rise in rents for the working class.[2] Who would have thought macroeconomics is complicated? This is a fundamentally dishonest objection. New housing is "luxury" housing because the housing market is so expensive that even 1 bedroom apartments rent for $3-4K. Blocking "luxury housing" is blocking all housing, because the market is so expensive that even the smallest units are expensive enough to be considered luxury. Seriously, even 300 sq foot studios rent for 2.5K: [link] Of course "luxury housing" is correlated with rising rents. When rents rise, newly constructed units get more expensive too and get pushed into the "luxury" price bracket. This i
in “San Francisco proposes “IPO tax” on eve of Uber offering” · View on HN
jeffbaxJan 2019Cites it
Profit is a function of materials, land, labor, margin, and very much regulatory cost. When town laws limit the height you can build, that means you have fewer units to distribute total costs across. Building 10 stories might be 70% the cost of 20 stories… so if you have double the units to spread things across, price per unit WILL be lower. Now extrapolate for things like 1. Minimum square footage 2. Parking requirements 3. "low income housing" units or other terms the local housing authority might put on top of any deal 4. Getting approval for the design (and the cycle of going back and forth to the drawing board) 5. Buying out surrounding rights holders like that old church you have to move across the street, or in SF's case the derelict gas station that is now a landmark if it means "preserving the character of the neighborhood" 6…etc Building is anything but easy or cheap: ▶ this video All this adds up. Public housing is important in the interim given its usually easier to get around existing regulations, but the government is one of the shittiest landlords around. The goal should be 100% private housing supply. Market based solutions will absolutely build homes for the homeless as long as the cost to build them do not exceed the value that whatever entity like the government or charity can pay. Markets deliver $8 Waffle House steak, and $60 Ruth's Chris steak. Cities/regulations only allow Ruth's Chris. You get luxury housing b/c it's too expensive to build anything else. Fo
in “'Dear NIMBYs' – An Open Letter from a Homeless Woman in LA” · View on HN