Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It seems more and more clear that California, or at least those in power in California, don't want to fix the housing problem. Because if you're a land owner, the only problem is people trying to spoil the good times. All this VC money pouring into the pockets of tech employees, and a larger and larger fraction going straight into landlords' pockets. What's not to love?

If actually you want lower home prices, build more homes. Build tall (curb height restriction rules); build everywhere (no more minimum parking rules); build immediately (reduce complex planning permissions for developers). Just build more.

Supply and demand will decide the price of most goods, and housing is no exception. Rent control does not address the underlying issues that cause prices to rise- lack of supply and growing demand.



Are there really not enough houses? I've always been under the impression that there exists more than enough housing, but a lot of it is empty.


Not enough to fix the housing problems CA has. Not nearly. And if that's the problem, tax empty homes.

But even then, even if there are empty homes, building more will still fix the problem. Let those foolish owners leave the homes empty- we can build more anyways.


I really dislike the notion of clearing more land and putting up more cookie cutter houses and apartments for the sake of saturating the housing market in order to get people to rent for reasonable prices.


Density is preferred, ie clearing parking lots downtown, not open spaces in the country.


I really dislike the fact that I’d have to save for decades just to afford a decent house in California.

The land isn’t doing anything just sitting there. I am totally fine with clearing it out so people can actually afford houses.


Coming from CA and living elsewhere now, it honestly hurts me how much people take that land for granted. It's so damn gorgeous and rare.


It is definitely stunning, and it can make a painful commute bearable, but I would put the needs of my fellow humans over aesthetic.

That said, there is still a ton of "boring" land we can build on first before cannibalizing the scenic drives.


> my fellow humans

This may be the pivotal pinch point which marks the root of our disagreement. I honestly feel more fellowship with animals and computers than humans.

Also, when it comes to the "needs" of humanity, I think we've surpassed that mark. It's beginning to appear that people are insatiable consumers that will destroy anything for a bit of convenience, all while being unhappy the entire time.

I'm not on team human.


In shrinking rural towns, sure. In cities like SF that have been adding only one unit of housing for every 5-6 new jobs, there's a very significant housing shortage.


There's plenty of houses if you're willing to move. I live in a house that would cost 1-4 million depending on what part of the valley you want to live in. There's good jobs and the schools are some of the best in the world. But it's a couple hours plane ride from NY and SF. This all just seems like utter madness to someone from the midwest.


> California, or at least those in power in California, don't want to fix the housing problem.

It’s a national problem. If you improve the supply only in CA, more folks will move there and recreate the problem.


yes, the incentives are misaligned for any other outcome




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: