Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals

thebaycitybeacon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 187 posts

Re: 97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals

#111

Post by tryitnow »

numbsafari wrote: post #32
yostrovs wrote: post #29

California always amazes with its goals, decade after decade of leadership among the states. Building is promoted to improve affordability. Building is discouraged to preserve the environment and maintain a local culture. Building is promoted to provide new transportation options. Building is discouraged to reduce congestion, contain sprawl. Building and not building at the same time helps California maintain its uni…

It’s as though California is a giant state with a diverse population, both politically and geographically, with lots of competing interests that, over time, has gone through various political and leadership changes that reflect that diversity.

Superficially, this may be the case, but when it comes to land use, entrenched interests tend to win - and those interests are the current homeowners who block new growth.

In short, it's a lot easier to not do something than to do it and in an environment of diverse, competing interest, the easiest route is the likely winner.

Re: 97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals

#112

Post by ebikelaw »

Vi0 wrote: post #110
ebikelaw wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what SB827 does. If a property is within the given radius from a transit station or a high-frequency bus line, minimum height limits are imposed (between 45 and 85 feet, depending on other factors) and all design controls (parking requirements, floor area ratio, setbacks, bulk) are rendered ineffective.

Where in https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... does it say that? 65917.7.b.4.A and B both impose minimums on the maximum height limit that can be imposed. They do not impose a minimum on the height itself. This bill allows for building higher, it does not force it.

I said “minimum height limits” read (minimum)(height limits) i.e. the height limits may not be lower.

Re: 97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals

#113

Post by Sinnesloschen »

jread wrote: post #88

I've been attempting to get building permits for a small personal residence in a So Cal coastal town for nearly 3 years. The experience dealing with the city has felt very adversarial. The sense I have is that the city and most neighbors don't want new construction, and in that spirit put up as many roadblocks, opposition and red tape as possible to slow you down, and in many cases stop you through attrition. I've se…

You could carefully review your local ordinances, if your allowed to make "improvements" to your house. You could theoretically tear down an entire house with the exception of a single internal wall. Then build you to your desire what you wish around this existing wall. Once enclosed, repair or accidentally knock over said wall and continue building. It's not as nice a starting fresh but it gets around a lot of the stifling that happens in regards to building new buildings.

If your just making improvements there is a lot more freedom in refurbishing and most code enforcement municipalities just drive by to check on your work. Your most likely not going to run into trouble.

Let me end with, this was done in another state, not by a lawyer, just some random guy on the internet.

Re: 97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals

#114

Post by tnorthcutt »

jread wrote: post #88

I've been attempting to get building permits for a small personal residence in a So Cal coastal town for nearly 3 years. The experience dealing with the city has felt very adversarial. The sense I have is that the city and most neighbors don't want new construction, and in that spirit put up as many roadblocks, opposition and red tape as possible to slow you down, and in many cases stop you through attrition. I've se…

excessive glazing

Wait – neighbors complain about a (potential) new home because it is designed with too many windows?

Re: 97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals

#115

Post by jread »

tnorthcutt wrote: post #114
jread wrote: post #88

I've been attempting to get building permits for a small personal residence in a So Cal coastal town for nearly 3 years. The experience dealing with the city has felt very adversarial. The sense I have is that the city and most neighbors don't want new construction, and in that spirit put up as many roadblocks, opposition and red tape as possible to slow you down, and in many cases stop you through attrition. I've se…

excessive glazing Wait – neighbors complain about a (potential) new home because it is designed with too many windows?

Yes citing reflection of the sun off the glass, light pollution, privacy and inefficiencies for heating/cooling the home.

Re: 97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals

#116

Post by hx87 »

api wrote: post #73
Wohlf wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently not, because 97% of the NIMBYs are winning.

The instant you sign a mortgage it becomes in your economic best interest to limit the supply of housing. Housing cannot simultaneously be affordable and a good investment. Homeowners on average tend to be more politically engaged, so homeowners dominate state and local politics. As for why every prosperous state doesn't have this problem as badly as California you can add prop 13 which hugely limited property tax in…

> The instant you sign a mortgage it becomes in your economic best interest to limit the supply of housing.

Not if you own the underlying land, or at least a portion thereof, and willing to build higher and denser and rent it out. For example, if I own a 1 story house, NIMBYism prevents me from building another story and renting it out as a separate unit for extra income. NIMBYism raises the value of my current property but lowers its potential value.

Re: 97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals

#117

Post by hx87 »

jread wrote: post #115
tnorthcutt wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

excessive glazing Wait – neighbors complain about a (potential) new home because it is designed with too many windows?

Yes citing reflection of the sun off the glass, light pollution, privacy and inefficiencies for heating/cooling the home.

It's almost like they've never heard of orientation, shading, or SHGCs.

Re: 97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals

#118

Post by [deleted] »

davidw wrote: post #108
briffle wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really get this mentality. Yes, its good to have your home go up in value, but when you sell, are you moving to South Dakota? If not, then the houses your hoping to move into have ALSO gone up in value. The difference being that nobody can afford 'starter homes' at the low end, so people have a harder time selling them, and moving up to a nicer house.

In the Bay Area, they sell and move to Oregon, driving up our prices. And because they're retired, don't have kids in schools or anything, they mostly vote against taxes. There are also plenty of entrepreneurs and hackers and so on who move up here, so that balances things out to some degree. Still, though, California's NIMBYism has repercussions throughout the entire west coast.

[deleted]

Re: 97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals

#119

Post by hx87 »

mywittyname wrote: post #86
cowsandmilk wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The instant you sign a mortgage it becomes in your economic best interest to limit the supply of housing. Not always. Being able to flip a single family to a developer who is going to build multifamily is often the best return on your investment. The more confidence the developer has that their proposed building will be approved, the higher the price you can get for your lot.

In doing this, you are no longer an owner, thus no longer have a vested interest in limiting housing. You profit from this, but at the expense of your neighbors. Imagine the opposite scenario where all over your neighbors do this, but you're the single hold out. Would your home be worth more, less, or the same with twice (or more) the number of people living on the block? Obviously, we don't really know, but the hold…

Your house is worth what people are willing to pay for it. Developers are willing to pay a lot for it since a multifamily building can yield a lot more rent revenue than a single family house. The house is probably worth more in this scenario.

Re: 97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals

#120

Post by jread »

Sinnesloschen wrote: post #113
jread wrote: post #88

I've been attempting to get building permits for a small personal residence in a So Cal coastal town for nearly 3 years. The experience dealing with the city has felt very adversarial. The sense I have is that the city and most neighbors don't want new construction, and in that spirit put up as many roadblocks, opposition and red tape as possible to slow you down, and in many cases stop you through attrition. I've se…

You could carefully review your local ordinances, if your allowed to make "improvements" to your house. You could theoretically tear down an entire house with the exception of a single internal wall. Then build you to your desire what you wish around this existing wall. Once enclosed, repair or accidentally knock over said wall and continue building. It's not as nice a starting fresh but it gets around a lot of the s…

Remodeling down to the studs is what many people do, but we have an empty lot.
Post reply on HN