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

Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 329 posts

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#61

Post by muninn_ »

Nav_Panel wrote: post #35
golemotron wrote: post #33

Maybe the answer is to stop growing and let other parts of the country grow. The brain drain to SV has been disastrous for other communities. It's contributed to inequality and deep geographic/political polarization. Yes, you can downvote me but consider formulating a counter-argument.

That's... not really how it works. Or, you could also argue that's what the area has been doing for the past 40 years, and look at the current state of housing. EDIT: I didn't downvote you, but I will elaborate: there's very little you can do to stop people from moving to California, short of forcefully putting them on buses and sending them away (which is what some cities actually do[1][2]). What you can do is figur…

But how many people are going to move there to live in a bus? I certainly wouldn't. If property values get too high I'll just not move there. I don't understand this mentality where everybody thinks they should be able to afford to live in the best cities in the country, especially in California. It's just simple supply and demand. If housing prices get too high and people can't afford to live there they will live somewhere else. Period.

Now that's an oversimplification. There is a lot to be said for mixed income communities and whatnot, but just saying "oh I can't afford to live here this sucks" is not good enough.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#62

Post by ethbro »

golemotron wrote: post #33

Maybe the answer is to stop growing and let other parts of the country grow. The brain drain to SV has been disastrous for other communities. It's contributed to inequality and deep geographic/political polarization. Yes, you can downvote me but consider formulating a counter-argument.

Parent makes a valid point. The market will (and has been) deciding, as middle-margin, non-cutting edge tech begins relocating R&D across the country.

But that happening isn't particularly good for California or the Bay Area.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#63

Post by [deleted] »

panzer_wyrm wrote: post #43
School-Cotton wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't it? Were individuals ever commonly buying houses (EDIT: any property) in Manhattan, for example? I don't have any hard numbers, but I suspect LA simply having become more urban and desirable is a big part of it. It's certainly still possible to buy houses in suburban flyover country very cheaply.

Please do not change the goalposts. You were talking about property not houses. Condos are property and are easier to obtain.

[deleted]

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#64

Post by pfooti »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #45
jkimmel wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only ~10% of California's water use is residential/urban (varies a little bit year to year) [0]. The majority of non-environmental water is used to grow cash crops in the central valley, like almonds, which take 1 gal/almond. Overall, urban residents have far less impact on climate than exurban residents who drive around in SUVs. It is in the best interests of everyone on planet Earth to make our cities denser and mo…

One gallon per almond? But... one gallon of bottled water is more than a dollar. I know there's packaging and transportation, but there's packaging and transportation for the almonds, too. And almonds are not one dollar per almond. Do the almond growers receive subsidized water? I don't know how else the economics of this works out. (Unless the water used to grow almonds isn't up to the purity standards of drinking w…

Yes, they do. Water is a lot less expensive for farmers, always has been.

This [0] is a pretty good analysis of how California spends its water. One interesting point: instead of carefully installing low-flow fixtures and rationing showers and letting your lawn die, you could pay the california alfalfa industry about $2 to grow $2 less alfalfa for a year.

0: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/11/california-water-you-do...

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#65

Post by jkimmel »

wfunction wrote: post #36
jkimmel wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only ~10% of California's water use is residential/urban (varies a little bit year to year) [0]. The majority of non-environmental water is used to grow cash crops in the central valley, like almonds, which take 1 gal/almond. Overall, urban residents have far less impact on climate than exurban residents who drive around in SUVs. It is in the best interests of everyone on planet Earth to make our cities denser and mo…

Wouldn't you need to grow more food supporting the growing in-population though?

CA exports a large portion of its agricultural products, including several top exports that are very water intensive to grow (again, almonds, walnuts, dairy & beef).

Moreover, current irrigation methods in the valley are not ideal for water conservation. Many farmers have water rights dating to the 19th century allowing nearly unfettered access to whatever water they can find, providing no economic incentive to invest in conservation infrastructure.

There is no Californian Malthusian crisis, just a story of poor resource management.

https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#66

Post by [deleted] »

Nav_Panel wrote: post #35
golemotron wrote: post #33

Maybe the answer is to stop growing and let other parts of the country grow. The brain drain to SV has been disastrous for other communities. It's contributed to inequality and deep geographic/political polarization. Yes, you can downvote me but consider formulating a counter-argument.

That's... not really how it works. Or, you could also argue that's what the area has been doing for the past 40 years, and look at the current state of housing. EDIT: I didn't downvote you, but I will elaborate: there's very little you can do to stop people from moving to California, short of forcefully putting them on buses and sending them away (which is what some cities actually do[1][2]). What you can do is figur…

[deleted]

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#67

Post by red_hairing »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #56
euyyn wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just for zoning requirements, not environmental ones, though.

Environmental requirements are often a back-door for NIMBY-ism. If you black-box the process, raising environmental concerns is a lever folks can pull to make specific proposed development more expensive and possibly cancelled. We have enough such levers. Everything of this "levers NIMBYs can pull to discourage development near them" category should get offloaded to a a bureaucracy that's empowered to ignore people y…

that is why if trump does manage to cut the EPA, it could drive down housing prices by increasing supply of new homes and apartments.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#68

Post by sjg007 »

colordrops wrote: post #27
School-Cotton wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> afford a home Can you afford rent, though? Isn't a bit extreme to expect to be able to own property -- like some sort of medieval lord -- in a major city?

Why would affording to purchase a property in a large diverse city like L.A. with a high salary be unreasonable? I really don't understand your stance.

It should be.. basic subdivision would work but it's nimbys that prevent it.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#69

Post by panzagl »

tomcam wrote: post #37
cjensen wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under existing rules, developers do not pay enough fees to allow the School Districts to build new schools to support the new housing. Now you'd like to rubber stamp this? For example there's a new development in Fremont of a few hundred houses: the school district had to zone it as "we'll provide school for you, but it'll be wherever we have space across the entire city." That's not good. To me the idiocy is this: t…

Wait, developers should pay for schools? What are property taxes for?

Property taxes pay for the schools that already exist. It's hard for a district to 'save up' because, well California, and 'surplus' money should be returned to the taxpayer. If developers don't cover the cost a district usually issues a bond but that's hard because, well, California, and direct democracy rarely votes to raise property tax mil rates whatever it would cost to cover the bond. And doesn't California basically freeze assessment values? Because why should the people who already live there pay for services for newcomers? It's all very hostile and backward.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#70

Post by jkimmel »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #45
jkimmel wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only ~10% of California's water use is residential/urban (varies a little bit year to year) [0]. The majority of non-environmental water is used to grow cash crops in the central valley, like almonds, which take 1 gal/almond. Overall, urban residents have far less impact on climate than exurban residents who drive around in SUVs. It is in the best interests of everyone on planet Earth to make our cities denser and mo…

One gallon per almond? But... one gallon of bottled water is more than a dollar. I know there's packaging and transportation, but there's packaging and transportation for the almonds, too. And almonds are not one dollar per almond. Do the almond growers receive subsidized water? I don't know how else the economics of this works out. (Unless the water used to grow almonds isn't up to the purity standards of drinking w…

Agricultural land is often connected to 19th century water rights in CA, allowing nearly unlimited access to ground water and a set allocation of running streams at very low cost.

Access to ground water is so unrestricted that the entire Central Valley is sinking! https://www.revealnews.org/article/california-is-sinking-and...

Post reply on HN