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

91–100 of 329 posts

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

#91

Post by panzer_wyrm »

abalashov wrote: post #74
panzer_wyrm wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. Renting with no road to purchase turns you into serf. Owning your dwelling is the most basic form a security a human needs. I own a condo that I rent and live renting in other part of my city. The rents cancel each other. It works very nice for me. I definitely wish more people own their homes. I also love highrises.

I'm not sure this rather dated precept is compatible with the exigencies of 21st century economics, and the flexibility, mobility and long hours demanded. For one thing, houses are cash sinks. It doesn't make sense for highly paid professionals to spend enormous amounts of time or money reshingling roofs, painting, mowing lawns, treating weeds, trimming hedges, repairing plumbing, etc. The deep specialisation and con…

Your story can also be made about housing affordability.

The cost of maintaining a house in the smallish 50 stories highrises in Shanghai per unit is a lot lower than for one level detached house.

Density gives ability for a lot of savings in everything.

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

#92

Post by abalashov »

panzer_wyrm wrote: post #91
abalashov wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure this rather dated precept is compatible with the exigencies of 21st century economics, and the flexibility, mobility and long hours demanded. For one thing, houses are cash sinks. It doesn't make sense for highly paid professionals to spend enormous amounts of time or money reshingling roofs, painting, mowing lawns, treating weeds, trimming hedges, repairing plumbing, etc. The deep specialisation and con…

Your story can also be made about housing affordability. The cost of maintaining a house in the smallish 50 stories highrises in Shanghai per unit is a lot lower than for one level detached house. Density gives ability for a lot of savings in everything.

That's true. Condos do provide a compromise that I find relatively acceptable, though I'm still not sold on overstating the security premium, particularly given the greater financial volatility of condos.

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

#93

Post by MaysonL »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #47
imbusy111 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a lot of people want to live in places that you mentioned. The really smart people will find a way to stay in California forcing all others to gather around them.

How far is it from Silicon Valley to a really good trout stream? In Boise, it's a lot closer. How about hiking in a wilderness area? Skiing? Now, true, if you want high-quality Chinese food, Boise may not be your cup of tea (pun intended). But I bet there are enough tech people who like the outdoors more than the big city to make a small-ish tech hub in someplace like Boise.

Ever heard of Micron Technology? They have a bit of a presence in Boise:

https://www.micron.com/about/locations/USA/Boise

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

#94

Post by nandemo »

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.

On the contrary, the artificial housing scarcity in California (as well as in NYC) contributes to inequality and hinders GDP growth:

http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.jp/2016/06/how-to-raise-gdp-10...

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

#95

Post by imbusy111 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #47
imbusy111 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a lot of people want to live in places that you mentioned. The really smart people will find a way to stay in California forcing all others to gather around them.

How far is it from Silicon Valley to a really good trout stream? In Boise, it's a lot closer. How about hiking in a wilderness area? Skiing? Now, true, if you want high-quality Chinese food, Boise may not be your cup of tea (pun intended). But I bet there are enough tech people who like the outdoors more than the big city to make a small-ish tech hub in someplace like Boise.

California is great for outdoorsy stuff as well. Beach is right there, plenty of hiking areas around the Peninsula, skiing is available 4 hours away about 8 months per year and there are enough fresh water rivers.

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

#96

Post by imbusy111 »

sjg007 wrote: post #73
imbusy111 wrote: post #12

Unlikely to happen, in my opinion. Locals, who have lived in the Bay Area for a long time, have all the voting rights and they either own homes and want to see their property value increase or are considered poor and get cheap housing and plenty of handouts. Only those who move here actually suffer and pay all the taxes to support the locals and end up renting forever.

More renters than owners. Renters need to get out and vote.

Too bad most of them are probably immigrants with no voting rights.

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

#97

Post by clock_tower »

imbusy111 wrote: post #17
golemotron wrote: post #9

It's a very anti-democratic move by California. They are willing to destroy local control of people in their communities to foster growth that will lead to further deterioration of living standards. Wouldn't it be better to try to grow tech outside of California in places like the Dakotas and Idaho where there is plenty of land and people in need of work? The American heartland could be a place rich in opportunity if…

Not a lot of people want to live in places that you mentioned. The really smart people will find a way to stay in California forcing all others to gather around them.

Not many want to live in these areas yet, but there was a time when Paris was a few mud huts on an island, and Venice was a swamp.

Determination, patience, and wealth are what create destinations, even if you don't have California's climate. (And Idaho's climate is pretty nice, from what I've heard of it, certainly better than the South's and the interior Midwest's.) And in the meantime, there's a great deal of unspoiled nature to enjoy -- as a sibling comment points out.

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

#98

Post by tracker1 »

golemotron wrote: post #87
closeparen wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you can get a Constitutional amendment to legalize and then implement controls on internal migration, this isn't an option you have. People are already moving here faster than housing is being built, and they have been for a long time. Maintaining a housing shortage doesn't prevent migration, it just means that when migration happens it results in a pressure-cooker of a housing market. We'd need an enormous am…

You don't stop growth by limiting it, you slow it by creating more attractive alternatives. Consider start-up zones in the interior of the US wired with fiber and zero taxation for 10 years. It is something the federal government could do to start alternative hubs.

Not that I want the federal govt meddling... I'm surprised other cities haven't pushed for this. I mean, just about any city within a 90 minute flight to SV is probably close enough if one has to do business there, and if you don't, all the better.

I'm frankly surprised that there isn't more effort to bring tech business into Denver, Phoenix, Houston and Atlanta... They all have some, but there's plenty of room for growth and the income to cost of living ratio for tech work is pretty nice... No you don't have the relatively great year round weather, but you do get more options.

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

#100

Post by klipt »

red_hairing wrote: post #67
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pretty sure California's CEQA is independent of the EPA.
Post reply on HN