Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 380 posts

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#11

Post by rokhayakebe »

hodwik wrote: post #2

I say this as a conservative: Building limits are systemically classist and racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system. If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. Remove occupancy laws where they're not about safety. Remove property line setbacks. End parking requirements. End requirements about private kitchens and bath…

The nation will become more equitable economically when rich people and poor people all share the same zipcodes again.

I have seen this in Atlanta where someone making an ok living, say $50,000, can live in one of the greatest neighborhood.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#12

Post by yardie »

cpitman wrote: post #5
Retric wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is infrastructure costs associated with new construction (schools, roads, etc.) Ideally a permit should add ~40k to cover those cost per additional dwelling which scales based on actual costs. Otherwise you keep having people who live in an area pay for new schools, water treatment plants, etc several times.

Shouldn't this be covered by property taxes and the additional income tax of the new residents?

Property tax comes after the fact. You move to a new area with kids now. You pay your property tax at the end of the year. But the kids need school right now and the district has to: find property to build a new school, raise bonds to fund it, build the damn thing, hire staff.

A modern tract home can be built in as little as 2 weeks with modern prefab construction. Schools take much longer.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#13

Post by hodwik2 »

mountaineer22 wrote: post #7
hodwik wrote: post #2

I say this as a conservative: Building limits are systemically classist and racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system. If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. Remove occupancy laws where they're not about safety. Remove property line setbacks. End parking requirements. End requirements about private kitchens and bath…

As a 'liberal', I disagree. It has nothing to do with race, it is economic disparity. These laws exist, in some extent, to preserve the existing character of the area, for better or worse. If you want to change these laws, I suggest you get involved (not necessarily to the same extent as Starchild in the article). What you are suggesting, would lead to a lower quality of life for everyone, rich and poor. It would inc…

>"If you want to change these laws, I suggest you get involved."

I've been considering campaigning for Donald Trump. Given his background, I think he may be the most likely president to push for the sort of anti-Zoning laws I'm interested in. Perhaps you're right.

>"Do you own real property?"

Yes, I own a home in a wealthy suburb just outside of Philadelphia. I am well aware of the growing pains this would cause. But that can't stop us, this is a human rights issue, as far as I am concerned.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#14

Post by atom-morgan »

mountaineer22 wrote: post #7
hodwik wrote: post #2

I say this as a conservative: Building limits are systemically classist and racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system. If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. Remove occupancy laws where they're not about safety. Remove property line setbacks. End parking requirements. End requirements about private kitchens and bath…

As a 'liberal', I disagree. It has nothing to do with race, it is economic disparity. These laws exist, in some extent, to preserve the existing character of the area, for better or worse. If you want to change these laws, I suggest you get involved (not necessarily to the same extent as Starchild in the article). What you are suggesting, would lead to a lower quality of life for everyone, rich and poor. It would inc…

> These laws exist, in some extent, to preserve the existing character of the area, for better or worse.

You're agreeing with parent.

> What you are suggesting, would lead to a lower quality of life for everyone, rich and poor. It would increase crime and decrease sanitation.

How so?

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#15

Post by mountaineer22 »

hodwik2 wrote: post #10
Retric wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is infrastructure costs associated with new construction (schools, roads, etc.) Ideally a permit should add ~40k to cover those cost per additional dwelling which scales based on actual costs. Otherwise you keep having people who live in an area pay for new schools, water treatment plants, etc several times.

People averse to low income and brown people moving to their nice little town will just weaponize those permit costs to block developers. By putting those infrastructure costs exclusively on the developer, you're basically taxing poverty, because those costs will all have to go on to the new poor residents. We already have an income tax system, it spreads the burden well. If the city needs more taxes to pay for infra…

"By putting those infrastructure costs exclusively on the developer, you're basically taxing poverty, because those costs will all have to go on to the new poor residents."

Can you explain that?

I don't understand..you lost me.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#16

Post by hodwik2 »

yardie wrote: post #12
cpitman wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn't this be covered by property taxes and the additional income tax of the new residents?

Property tax comes after the fact. You move to a new area with kids now. You pay your property tax at the end of the year. But the kids need school right now and the district has to: find property to build a new school, raise bonds to fund it, build the damn thing, hire staff. A modern tract home can be built in as little as 2 weeks with modern prefab construction. Schools take much longer.

The students escaping the ghetto will still be getting a measurably better education on the strained suburban school than they will at the ghetto school they're currently stuck in.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#17

Post by pj_mukh »

hodwik wrote: post #2

I say this as a conservative: Building limits are systemically classist and racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system. If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. Remove occupancy laws where they're not about safety. Remove property line setbacks. End parking requirements. End requirements about private kitchens and bath…

As a liberal, I agree.

One problem, foreign money. It is mentioned in passing in the article but Vancouver (even with more sensible building laws) is still getting screwed because foreign money keeps pouring in.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#18

Post by surfmike »

hodwik wrote: post #2

I say this as a conservative: Building limits are systemically classist and racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system. If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. Remove occupancy laws where they're not about safety. Remove property line setbacks. End parking requirements. End requirements about private kitchens and bath…

I totally agree that building limits are bad. But zoning and planning still have some virtues.

I think we need something to swing the balance towards more housing without throwing out zoning. So perhaps targets for housing units created, and if a city isn't doing enough, everything is already up zoned to, say, 4x the density previously allowed.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#19

Post by mountaineer22 »

hodwik2 wrote: post #13
mountaineer22 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a 'liberal', I disagree. It has nothing to do with race, it is economic disparity. These laws exist, in some extent, to preserve the existing character of the area, for better or worse. If you want to change these laws, I suggest you get involved (not necessarily to the same extent as Starchild in the article). What you are suggesting, would lead to a lower quality of life for everyone, rich and poor. It would inc…

>"If you want to change these laws, I suggest you get involved." I've been considering campaigning for Donald Trump. Given his background, I think he may be the most likely president to push for the sort of anti-Zoning laws I'm interested in. Perhaps you're right. >"Do you own real property?" Yes, I own a home in a wealthy suburb just outside of Philadelphia. I am well aware of the growing pains this would cause. But…

So, if I bought the house next door to you, and had 8 separate families live there (I would be charging them rent), you would be okay with that?

Also, since garbage storage would be a problem, I told my tenants they can just toss their garbage bags over the fence into your yard, and you would take care of it.

And since parking is now an issue with 15 additional cars, and friends visiting in their cars, I suggested they use your driveway or yard as parking.

Are you okay with that?

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#20

Post by wmccullough »

vasilipupkin wrote: post #6
hodwik wrote: post #2

I say this as a conservative: Building limits are systemically classist and racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system. If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. Remove occupancy laws where they're not about safety. Remove property line setbacks. End parking requirements. End requirements about private kitchens and bath…

There are permitting processes for a reason. So that we do not have an epidemic of shoddily built houses that fall down or burn down, etc. or, don't end up with a nuclear power plant in the middle of a quite residential street. Granted, some limits are too restrictive and should be removed and/or relaxed. Others should be kept and/or enhanced. Blanket removal of all limits is just as stupid as limits that are too res…

Removing zoning permits does not equate to shoddily built houses. This is what you call, a straw man.
Post reply on HN