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

251–260 of 329 posts

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

#251

Post by usefulcat »

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,…

"..if stuff gets falsified on the affidavit we go after you after-the-fact"

If I were a developer, I'd be hesitant to build anything with that hanging over my head. It probably also means I'll have more difficulty getting financing. Less up-front bureaucracy, more risk and cost.

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

#252

Post by michaelt »

deathanatos wrote: post #149
djrogers wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This isn't a misconception in California; the literal text of the law in some circumstances effectively earmarks funds. For example, take the first proposition from the last election — which happens to be about schools — Prop 51 from the November 2016 general election: > A fund is hereby established in the State Treasury, to be known as the 2016 State School Facilities Fund > no disbursement shall be made from any fu…

Right, but if you were paying schools $x from the general fund, then a special law gives them an extra $y, you can reduce the payment from the general fund by $y.

Thus the schools are receiving the $y, just as promised. Only they aren't any better off, and the general fund has an extra $y in it now.

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

#253

Post by muninn_ »

closeparen wrote: post #249
muninn_ wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

You're ruining their pursuit of happiness. They want to live in an uncrowded neighborhood that was how it was when they bought their home. If you don't like the home prices then don't live there. It's quite simple. I choose not to live there when I could because I believe the prices are too high. Instead of cramming my family into a crowded area I just live in a nice little home with a good income and space. You're free to make your own choice.

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

#254

Post by zardo »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #197
rplst8 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Why should society subsidize someone using a piece of land, when another potential tenant will pay taxes on its true value? The government has to fund itself, so a reduction in property taxes means increases in other taxes. If the replacement taxes apply to everyone equally, that means wealth is effectively being transferred from average people (who are likely in debt with little savings) to people who completely own…

>The old person will make a good amount of money selling their home, and they can use that windfall to buy a nice new home somewhere warm and cheap, so it isn't like they're being trampled on.

It deconstructs communities.

This land is too valuable to allow you people to squat on it. We'll compensate you, so it's all fine and fair, now get out.

It's not hard to understand why people don't like being treated that way.

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

#255

Post by muninn_ »

Nav_Panel wrote: post #248
muninn_ wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

It's just a matter of degree. You're drawing an arbitrary line here. Nobody is prohibiting anybody from construction, they're prohibiting certain types of construction. You can build a house, it just has to follow the rules and guidelines that the community has established.

It's a pretty common thing in the United States. There are historical neighborhoods for example. People pay a lot of money to live in these neighborhoods. You can't just waltz in and tear down an expensive house and turn it into a property with a couple of trailers on it.

The area has housing problems, no doubt about it, I'm not arguing that they don't, but there is clear legal, and social precedent for establishing rules for communities throughout the United States.

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

#256

Post by euyyn »

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…

> raising environmental concerns is a lever folks can pull to make specific proposed development more expensive and possibly cancelled

Environmental concerns under CEQA aren't "black-boxed" or generic, they have to be categorized, detailed, and public. Mitigation measures are sometimes expensive, yes.

Rubber-stamping construction permits in my island is how we ended up with rows of hotels destroying the coast illegally. Once the buildings are there, the harm is done, and no one has the money to demolish them. "Going after them after the fact" can work for arbitrary zoning requirements, but it doesn't work for environmental ones.

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

#257

Post by muninn_ »

closeparen wrote: post #241
muninn_ wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. T…

K so I'll buy the houses surrounding yours and build some huge barbwire walls, then on the outside of the walls I'll just paint them with horrific images, just gross stuff that anybody would find disgusting to look at. You spent 1.5mm on that house, and now because it's surrounded with these walls the property value is cut to basically nothing. House appraised as worthless, financial ruin for you.

But hey fuck you right?

>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.

Me me me me me.

I want an affordable house, with enough space to raise children, affordable rent, the job that I want and I want to live right next to Breckenridge so I can ski all the time! Oh and I want a short commute, freshly paved roads, bike lanes, HUGE parks, the best schools, and free community events. That's the life I want. So I guess I get to move in and start demanding those things?

Sorry. Life doesn't work that way. Whether it's somebody's view, or the neighborhood they moved in to, you aren't entitled to things like that. Housing will be expensive in desirable areas. You don't get to just move in and complain it's expensive. Move somewhere else or deal with it.

Ridiculous.

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

#258

Post by hkmurakami »

_archon_ wrote: post #250
mabbo wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Createdmall development company, take the contract, deliver faulty building, accept payment, pay out funds to employees (subcontractors) and owners of the company, shut down company if the district comes after them.

It would incentivize his sort of behavior too.

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

#259

Post by TulliusCicero »

ianamartin wrote: post #133
skewart wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

That sounds an awful lot like you're suggesting that people who have already acquired the rights to a piece of property shouldn't be allowed to keep them if a housing developer wants to put a high rise where your Burger King is. Also, I wonder if you would make the same argument for places that are also generally though of as real-estate constrained. Like Manhattan, or Tokyo. Or the part of Brooklyn where I live.

The problem is not property owners being unwilling to sell out to developers, it's almost always nearby NIMBYs opposing new development.

IIRC a large percentage of buildings in Manhattan would be illegal to build today in terms of design/zoning.

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

#260

Post by kurthr »

_archon_ wrote: post #250
mabbo wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

This sounds like the sort of disincentive (after the units are sold and the horse has left the barn) that a good lawyer can easily prevent. Just like movies & funds can make/lose money that can't be clawed back, you just build an investment that pays out on sale to be nonexistent/bankrupt when fined.

Are there regulatory ways around this? Of course, but they are complex, restrict the market in other ways, and lead to different distortions.

Post reply on HN