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

241–250 of 329 posts

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

#241

Post by closeparen »

muninn_ wrote: post #161
closeparen wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand this mentality where everybody thinks they are entitled to prevent others (from the same country, no less!) from moving in to their community. It's not "supply and demand" until the supply caps come off. It's just policy set by the entrenched.

No different than any other prevention, or rule. Why shouldn't they be able to? If you moving to my community and doing whatever causes damage to the value of my property that's no different than doing damage to anything else. It's their community they set the rules. Why have communities or governments, or even countries for that matter? Fundamentally they do the same things. Why should I not be able to just come liv…

We have laws and governments to protect public safety (from hazards such as violence, unsafe driving, unsafe building design, fire, communicable disease, environmental toxicity, etc.), to enforce property rights over what people actually own, to provide essential services such as water, sewer, police, firefighting, and education, and to look after the interests of those who can't get their needs met in the market.

There's not much precedent around protecting the scarcity of assets as a job for government. Maybe taxi medallions?

>Why should I not be able to just come live in your house or just build a house in your backyard?

Because I own my backyard. On the adjacent lots, if you can buy them, knock yourself out. No one owns their view, unless they actually own a view easement. The government has no business enforcing property rights that don't exist.

>Oh you have a great view?

Are you seriously suggesting that someone else should be prevented from living the life they want, the job they want, affordable rent, enough space to raise children, etc. to protect someone else's view? That's an unbelievably fucked up level of dystopian.

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

#242

Post by bmelton »

djrogers wrote: post #135
azernik wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Common misconception- usually what happens is we are promised that funds from a new tax will be earmarked for something, then it winds up going in to the general fund, or spent somewhere else. Taxpayers have a real blind spot to the whole 'money is fungible' concept.

Generally speaking, the money that gets earmarked goes where it belongs. It's all the other money that wasn't earmarked before-hand that gets pulled out.

The political promise is usually "Hey, we'll implement a lottery and earmark 100% of the taxes towards education -- that'll be $20 million a year!" to which everybody thinks that $20 million will be added to the $30 million already being spent. But what happens is the $20 million lottery gets added, then the $20 million non-earmarked funds get pulled to pay for , such that the schools don't end up with any more or less than they had.

Past that, "earmarked for schools" is also a way to reframe over political opponents against the lottery as "voting against education".

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

#243

Post by ocschwar »

namdnay wrote: post #224
JulianMorrison wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's American cars. Y'all drive barges. Contrast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_car

Actually, I was quite surprised during a recent visit to Japan. There aren't many cars, but most of them are big saloons (lots of Crowns). Then again maybe if you can afford a car in Tokyo or Osaka, you can afford a big one.

The car's not the hard part. The hard part is securing ownership of a parking spot for the night.

You have to prove this before you can retitle a car.

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

#244

Post by jjawssd »

VLM wrote: post #232
jjawssd wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cond…

Damn that is a bleak outlook

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

#245

Post by logicalmind »

mikekij wrote: post #4

Currently trying to build a house in San Diego county. Red tape, permitting, and waiting on the county to review things has consumed no less than 18% of our total budget. I'm happy that California protects our environment from negative environmental impacts, but the way in which they do it makes new housing almost entirely uneconomical.

I live in North County San Diego and there are various communities of new construction available. From what I've seen, places are more willing to accept planned communities where you can account for traffic, water/sewer, schools, etc.

I'm not sure if you're talking about building a new home that replaces an existing one, or building a new home where no home has ever been built. I assume the latter, but if so, there is certainly a lot involved.

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

#246

Post by Tempest1981 »

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.

Thanks. But what are we defining as cities? Are suburbs included? Where are suburbs allowed to remain, as we force zoning shifts to high density?

The YIMBY movement is strong throughout the Penninsula, between SF to San Jose -- areas previously considered suburbs.

Clearly a 5000 sq ft lot is unacceptable in SF, but where _is_ it acceptable? San Bruno? Menlo Park? Mountain View? Sunnyvale? Pleasanton? Oakland? And for how long?

The article is talking about State laws. Presumably they would apply to all cities, not just SF.

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

#247

Post by VLM »

jjawssd wrote: post #244
VLM wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cond…

Damn that is a bleak outlook

I never said I liked it ... not ignoring the bad stuff is a typical engineering trait.

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

#248

Post by Nav_Panel »

muninn_ wrote: post #160
wbl wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should existing residents have the power to prohibit the construction of apartment buildings, duplexes, and town houses by their neighbors?

Why shouldn't they?

Because they only are responsible for the property they own and not the property/land next door? It might make financial (or even quality-of-life-related) sense for a property owner to fight against construction next door, but I can't think up any reasonable or legal justification for why a property owner should have the power to prohibit construction next door...

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

#249

Post by closeparen »

muninn_ wrote: post #160
wbl wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should existing residents have the power to prohibit the construction of apartment buildings, duplexes, and town houses by their neighbors?

Why shouldn't they?

We move in anyway. We cram into existing bedrooms, increasing the number of incomes needed to afford a single unit. We mega-commute, taking up resources like train seats and roadway space for ridiculous lengths of time, consuming energy and releasing pollutants along the way. We crowd out parking, particularly when the room for us is far from transit and walkable areas. People we displace become desperate, which has public health and crime effects, or they move away, diminishing the character that made the place desirable. We live in the suburbs, depriving insolvent city governments of needed tax revenue.

You can't stop us from moving in. Controls on internal migration in the United States are unconstitutional. The best you can do is allocate new units in proportion to new residents so that we don't wreck the existing market.

Because how the fuck can your view, the uncrowdedness of your street, be worth more than everyone else's pursuit of happiness?

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

#250

Post by _archon_ »

mabbo wrote: post #233
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)…

This seems like the sort of behavior which can be disincentivized with steep fines. You, a developer, built a large building not to code? You have to pay to have it re-worked, and in addition you pay the local town $1000 per domicile affected per day it's delayed. Made-up example, but you get the idea.
Post reply on HN