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

231–240 of 329 posts

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

#231

Post by Paul-ish »

ceejayoz wrote: post #60
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…

Canadian-style empty home taxes would be a fairly easy sell to most Democrats. I suspect you're glossing over some additional rhetoric that's coming with it if you're being called an anti-immigrant Trump supporter.

In California would prop 13 block such a tax?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1...

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

#232

Post by VLM »

jjawssd wrote: post #223
whyenot wrote: post #76

I have what would appear to be a good middle class job at a state university but because I live in the Bay Area, half my paycheck goes to rent. Many of my coworkers are now working weekend jobs just to stay ahead. Positions remain unfilled for many months because the jobs don't pay enough. The chances that the state will give us a meaningful pay raise is basically zero. The California Faculty Association negotiated a…

You complain but you still put up with it which is why nothing ever gets done

Oversupply, ironically, from the educational sector.

Lets say the economy is big enough to consume X new graduates of major Y. The problem we have as a nation and an economy is we've been producing between 2X and 100X degrees of major Y for many years. The majority of OPs fellow grads from that graduation year are working as bartenders or waiters or salespeople or software devs, so being stuck in horrible living conditions yet in his academic field means OP graduated at a very high percentile of class (maybe more than 99th if he's english lit, or at least 90th for a "normal" field). If OP bails there are at least 10 to 100 grads who currently have worse jobs probably not even in the field, with the same degree as OP, chomping at the bit to take his awful job.

Restriction of supply is the only way out. That means eliminating socialized student loans, and that would result in crying and squealing like the world has never seen before, so that's not politically possible. A massive world war and draft? Close the borders? We know the demand side of the economy will never grow big enough to provide enough jobs for the people already qualified and living here, so don't count on the demand side to fix things, its gotta be a supply side solution.

In the long run, a large fraction of the population has to immigrate elsewhere or die or tune in turn on drop out NEET style or do hippie commune UBI or have a (hopefully nonviolent) revolution ... I'm unaware of any viable alternative to the list. Kicking the can down the road BAU style means the inevitable crash will be much bigger.

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

#233

Post by mabbo »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #16

IMO, it's gotten bad enough in the Bay Area that local control of zoning ought to get abolished. Make a new regional zoning commission, put together some clear and consistent rules about what can be built and where, and rubber-stamp everything that meets those rules. Literal rubber-stamp here, as in "you give us an affidavit saying that your plan meets the specified rules, and you get a permit to build the same day,…

> you give us an affidavit saying that your plan meets the specified rules, and you get a permit to build the same day, and if stuff gets falsified on the affidavit we go after you after-the-fact".

My wife used to work as an engineer approving (or demanding changes) to plans for Toronto. The biggest problem is that developers will cut every-single-corner and later plead ignorance when they build the 'wrong' (cheaper) way.

Here's what would happen in the scenario you're describing: Developers would build whatever the heck they like. Then, they'd be told "You built something that doesn't meet code". The developer would say "Well, my mistake, but it's built now and do you really want to tear down this new housing development that people paid for 3 years ago?". Now you have a political situation where the people who want to move in are being told that the building has to be torn down. Politicians would get involved, and the building (not meeting code) would be allowed to stay.

This would repeat over and over again.

I completely agree that we need a straightforward set of clear, consistent rules. But the idea of pre-approval without checking what the developer plans to build, how they plan to deal with waste-water, storm-water, parking, and a long list of other requirements, that's asking for trouble.

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

#234

Post by asveikau »

azernik wrote: post #128
distances wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forgive my ignorance, but are taxes really earmarked in the US? As far as I understand, in most of Europe the government and municipality just collect their dues and spend according to an approved budget with no earmarking whatsoever.

They really are. At least in California. One of many ways in which local government here is fucked up.

More like a common gripe for people who don't understand the role of government or the fungibility of money. My first political season spent in California I was shocked at how in the discourse some people used the phrase "general fund" as shorthand for political wrongdoing without any further elaboration. Ok, they pool the money, so what? If they spend the money for something else, we the people are still receiving government services in exchange for our taxes as allocated by our duely elected officials, so I see no harm, no foul.

I am sure some fake-libertarian HNer who wants the shrink government to the size of a bathtub drain will tell me I am wrong.

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

#235

Post by muninn_ »

Zach_the_Lizard wrote: post #181
muninn_ wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Again, why shouldn't the be allowed to do that? I want to live on Harvard/MITs campus and live next to the smartest people in the world (at least some of them) and have a nice little 3 br house on a half acre. These high home prices keep me out it's not fair!!

This simply cannot work. The most desirable areas in the world are going to have high prices that exclude "normal people" period.

> 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.

This actually happens all the time. Every time a new subdivision is built in the suburbs this is exactly what happens. Hell, even new condos being built in my small city in the downtown area do this. So unless you're going to mandate that every single development that will house human beings stratifies the cost such that each income level can afford the exact same setup and you don't allow people over that income level to purchase housing, then you will never solve this "problem".

Does it suck and is it not fair that you're not mega rich and can afford to live in Manhattan or in the hippest part of SF? No. That's just a market economy. I also can't buy a Ferrari and have to drive a Honda around. Can I afford a 1.5mm shack in SF? Sure. Why would I do that when I can afford a 1.5mm giganto-mansion on the Great Lakes?

City ordinances, national ordinances, any of those are fundamentally the same thing. You're just arguing about what's most prolific because that's in your field of vision. Why can't I buy an affordable house in Switzerland? Why are they keeping average Americans out?

Why can't I afford a 2br/3b flat in Paris next to the Louvre? Why don't they just fill that place up with skyscrapers?

etc. etc.

Maybe people want to keep their neighborhoods how they are? Maybe the charm that makes a place what it is has value, and should be protected? Why should they lose tens-hundreds of thousands of dollars in value because other people want to move next to them?

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

#236

Post by ceejayoz »

Paul-ish wrote: post #231
ceejayoz wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canadian-style empty home taxes would be a fairly easy sell to most Democrats. I suspect you're glossing over some additional rhetoric that's coming with it if you're being called an anti-immigrant Trump supporter.

In California would prop 13 block such a tax? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1...

I'm no legal expert, but such a tax would probably come as a new proposition anyways.

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

#237

Post by tehlike »

colordrops wrote: post #2

I'm making what I would think to be an upper middle class salary and I can't afford a home in a modestly decent neighborhood in L.A. It seems to me that there is definitely a problem and I support loosening development restrictions. It's not only restrictions though. Of the people I know who own property, many, if not the majority, own more than one property, some of them empty. I also know many remote Chinese that o…

The other side of the coin is this is akin to what employees from bay area are doing in, say, Texas. They buy properties and propping up the prices elsewhere.

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

#238

Post by lovich »

CalRobert wrote: post #229
jrapdx3 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're right. I my observation (though not in SF) the top 2 sources of dispute are 1.) parking, and 2.) dogs. Not infrequently, there's a correlation between offensive parking and promoting bad dog behavior. Of course it makes sense that would be the case. Inconsiderate people are likely not to care about encroaching on others' driveways when they or their guests leave their vehicles. They're also not likely…

Sounds like the permits are still cheaper than they should be, though. Presumably if people value the parking such that it's the best use of land an enterprising person could set up a parking garage and make a profit?

That would require the enterprising person to be able to get past the NIMBYism to construct the parking garage

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

#239

Post by thrownblown »

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…

With the McD's on Van Ness gone, the BK has grown in popularity and utilization. It's the Round Table Pizza next-door that's gotta go

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

#240

Post by tehlike »

Eric_WVGG wrote: post #189
Tempest1981 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem exists in the suburbs, too. Everywhere from San Bruno down to santa clara.
Post reply on HN