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

181–190 of 329 posts

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

#181

Post by Zach_the_Lizard »

muninn_ wrote: post #166
dalbasal wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose that's what this discussion is about. Who deserves what. I don't think anyone really has suggestions that enable anyone to by a family home in Palo Alto. But, the question is do local residents deserve the right to keep out newcomers. Who has what rights (who deserves what) is not an abstract truth we discover. It’s decisions we make.

But then you're asserting that those who live in Palo Alto don't have the right to govern their community. They aren't keeping out newcomers at all, in fact, there are houses for sale in Palo Alto. For some reason people think that living in that area should be affordable. It shouldn't be. Live somewhere else.

Houses are for sale, of course, but suppose I passed a law requiring all new houses to be mansions. I'm talking palace of Versailles level amenities, out of reach for all but the most wealthy.

It's true that anyone is legally allowed to live here.

It's also true I've excluded, by legal fiat, almost all Americans. I've declared my lifestyle superior to all others and no one else can live here except those who enjoy the same.

Palo Alto is not as extreme.

But it still limits the number of houses, tells everyone what lifestyles are legally permissible (don't forget to include parking or yards!), and excludes vast swaths of Americans.

This isn't good governance. It's not healthy for the region, and it's not healthy on a national basis.

This is why many nations take away zoning power from localities and move it to regional or even national levels.

It's also why we don't have the power to vote for who lives next to us, at least explicitly. That would be local governance, but quite cruel and prone to abuse.

Why do we give localities this right to implicitly vote out people?

I would argue it is just as cruel and misguided as voting to ban your neighbor

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

#182

Post by matwood »

dalbasal wrote: post #154
fmboingo wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always find it interesting to hear what people believe they deserve. In these comments you can hear the "I deserve to live in a house with my family of 4 in Palo Alto". Do you really deserve that? Says who? That would be like me showing up in NYC and saying I deserve to live in a penthouse on 5th Ave. No I don't. There is plenty of wide open space outside the Bay Area.

I suppose that's what this discussion is about. Who deserves what. I don't think anyone really has suggestions that enable anyone to by a family home in Palo Alto. But, the question is do local residents deserve the right to keep out newcomers. Who has what rights (who deserves what) is not an abstract truth we discover. It’s decisions we make.

> But, the question is do local residents deserve the right to keep out newcomers.

Also, when does someone become 'local'? All the time on Nextdoor I see, "we need to stop the building", "traffic is bad", "there are too many people". Yet, the loudest complainers are people who literally just moved to my town in the last year. The building, etc... is what allowed them to move here in the first place so don't complain about it now.

SF is not the only city experiencing these issues, although they are amplified. Nearly every nice weather coastal city in the US is growing out of control right now as people flee much of the center of the country.

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

#183

Post by rplst8 »

erispoe wrote: post #143
timr wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Not really. There's plenty of room to build a ton more in San Francisco." "Anti-building regulations are the only meaningful reason why the housing supply is so restricted." Prove your claim. The GP is right that there is essentially no undeveloped land in SF; a huge part of the housing moratorium debate centered on the fact that there are only a half-dozen or so vacant parcels in the Mission. This is true across th…

SF city occupies approximatively the same area as Paris, with only a third of the population. Most of Paris is developed with a 37m ceiling, hardly skyscrapers. Cost of land goes up with density, but that's the point. You build more and spread that cost among more units. Up to a point, it is economical to build higher in that situation (then for skyscrapers you start to see cost per unit going up again). Look at all…

> Look at all the 3 or 4 stories apartment buildings sprouting in the city right now. Most of them could be double the height without increasing construction costs per unit.

I'm not sure that's correct. I think the reason that you see a lot at that height is because building codes change quite a bit as you go past a certain height and the costs go up as well.

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

#184

Post by rplst8 »

hpaavola wrote: post #158
timr wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Not really. There's plenty of room to build a ton more in San Francisco." "Anti-building regulations are the only meaningful reason why the housing supply is so restricted." Prove your claim. The GP is right that there is essentially no undeveloped land in SF; a huge part of the housing moratorium debate centered on the fact that there are only a half-dozen or so vacant parcels in the Mission. This is true across th…

"or the owner of the land doesn't want to redevelop it" I don't know the English terms here, but that kind of situation where individuals are earning massive profits because everybody else built city around them, is just wrong. That unearned rise in the property value should be taxed away. So, just zone more apartments in that area and put big enough property tax on underdeveloped land area. That way the economic inc…

> That unearned rise in the property value should be taxed away.

That is so wrongheaded I don't know where to start. Increasing property taxes is the exact reason you have older folks be forced out of their homes after having lived there most of their life.

No one should have a continuously growing tax burden over time.

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

#185

Post by oftenwrong »

skewart wrote: post #124
flomo wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Originally from Minneapolis. Farmlands extend infinitely outwards in all directions. The real Met Council power is over the sewer pipes, which allows them to limit sprawl and set a growth boundary. Maybe things have changed, but it used to be run mostly by real-estate types who wanted "controlled growth". (that is, it was a racket.) In San Francisco, the situation is entirely different. We have a massive greenbelt su…

> which is 99% developed. Not really. There's plenty of room to build a ton more in San Francisco. Just because there's already, say, a parking lot or a Burger King with a drive-through on a block in the city doesn't mean that it wouldn't be possible to build apartments there instead. Geography and existing land use do not prevent building more housing in SF. Anti-building regulations are the only meaningful reason w…

It goes beyond the lots and what is built on them - just look at the streets.

A random residential street in SF: https://goo.gl/maps/GtKscWh1ko52

A random residential street in Tokyo: https://goo.gl/maps/QqtERUnBzXD2

According to my google maps eyeballing, the SF street is about 6 times wider building-to-building.

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

#186

Post by ceejayoz »

wbl wrote: post #126
posixplz wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, i fear that any sufficiently strong measures to restrict empty homes or foreign investment (see: empty home taxes in British Columbia) will be met with strong resistance from Democrats. As a resident of the Pacific Northwest, the same property squeeze is happening here on a similarly massive scale, also driven by foreign "investment". In my experience, advocating for…

Why should we restrict selling homes to people abroad who will never use them? It's a wonderful export market.

Turning vibrant cities into investment property ghost towns isn't a great idea.

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

#187

Post by Eric_WVGG »

mathperson wrote: post #116
gumby wrote: post #40

For a bit of micro NIMBYism: my street in Palo Alto just instituted resident-only parking (I was the only one to object). Thus the people who cut our hair, serve our meals etc will have to walk even farther to work (my house is about 1.25 miles from downtown) while the wealthy shoppers park downtown for free. Yes it was a pain having a lot of cars on the street but I didn't feel it was a hardship that I couldn't park…

is it 100 a year? that seems quite affordable to me even if someone is making 8 dollars an hour.

It's not, though.

I once observed that a few of my college-aged friends were subsisting on canned tomatoes and beans, and struggling to make ends meet. I suggested that they use my Costco membership to buy a months worth of supplies at once for roughly half to two-thirds or what they were spending. They patiently explained to me that part of why they lived this way was because they were already barely living within their means, which made acquiring two weeks worth of dining funds impossible (even if it meant "free" food for the rest of the month).

These fees are the kind of death-by-a-thousand-cuts that keep people in poverty.

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

#188

Post by scarface74 »

What I really don't get is why isn't the free market working? It seems like other cities in other states would compete for high tech jobs aggressively enough to make companies willing to move to cheaper areas where they could pay their employees less and the employees have a better cost of living.

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

#189

Post by Eric_WVGG »

Tempest1981 wrote: post #141
Tempest1981 wrote: post #84

Some of us just wanted a 3 bedroom house on a 5000 sq ft lot -- so we could have a small yard with room for a dog and BBQ. Maybe a kid playing outside. Now we're being told we're greedy, and our neighborhoods should be replaced with 3 story townhouses on 1200 sq ft lots. No room for Fido. Makes me wonder what we're working insane hours for -- to settle for permanent apartment style living. At least we don't have cage…

Heavy down votes, wow. Did I offend someone?

I didn't downvote you, and I'm not offended, but I sure as hell rolled my eyes at your comment.

Nobody in a city deserves their own yard. Public parks where everyone can BBQ make far more sense. Want a dog? Move to Montana, or get a housecat instead.

You seem to want sprawl; cities need density.

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

#190

Post by pimmen89 »

scarface74 wrote: post #188

What I really don't get is why isn't the free market working? It seems like other cities in other states would compete for high tech jobs aggressively enough to make companies willing to move to cheaper areas where they could pay their employees less and the employees have a better cost of living.

Because there are two demands competing; my demand for a home and the demand for a home without stuff bothering me.
Post reply on HN