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

Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 373 posts

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#331

Post by ta2164 »

cheriot wrote: post #326
ta2164 wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're straw manning hard. No one is making the claim that laws of the past weren't racist. Now, they're not, and so Asians, Indians, Africans (as in recent African immigrants), etc. all flood to the suburbs because suburbs are decidedly not racist, and are free of the riff raff. >Saying, "we only like the economic segregation part now" doesn't change the outcome. Correlation does not imply causation. It's no secret…

"They are de facto not barred from suburbs, meaning suburbs are de facto not racist" You're pretending that explicit racism is the only form of racism. Modern zoning was invented precisely because the Supreme Court outlawed explicit racial zoning. It was designed to racially segregate and continues to do so. Example: "More than 80% of America’s large metropolitan areas were more racially segregated in 2019 than they…

>You're pretending that explicit racism is the only form of racism.

I'm not pretending, racism is racism, you don't get to redefine what words mean in order to fit your narrative. Suburbs are de facto and de jure not racist.

>Modern zoning was invented precisely because the Supreme Court outlawed explicit racial zoning.

This is not entirely true. Zoning laws in LA and NYC predate explicit racial zoning, and survived past the 1917 Supreme Court ruling.

>It was designed to racially segregate and continues to do so.

Again, not entirely true, and definitely no longer true. Asians, Jews, Indians, Africans, etc. are all more likely to reside in suburban areas now, so they by definition do not "racially segregate and continues to do so".

>"More than 80% of America’s large metropolitan areas were more racially segregated in 2019 than they were in 1990" https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/28/us-racial-se...

Your link literally agrees with me: "Many of these policies were not designed to oppress."

>The history is well documented. Read Color of Law or for a shorter form: https://grist.org/cities/zoned-out-one-womans-half-century-f...

Poor opinion piece that conflates zoning and segregation laws, which is what many people have been doing because it's politically expedient.

>When the origin

Maybe, but not entirely.

>and outcome

Provably not so. Asians/Indians (a historically disadvantaged POC), Africans, etc. are all flooding to suburbs, which means they are de facto no longer racist, and do not have a racist outcome. QED.

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#332

Post by ta2164 »

dillondoyle wrote: post #220
ta2164 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not arguing that, but that is decidedly not racist. It's why educated Blacks in the US are moving back to red Southern states more so than they're moving to blue Northeast and Western ones. It's much cheaper and easier to build new housing in suburban Dallas or Atlanta versus San Francisco, New York, or LA.

A big thing I've noticed - especially on HN which is mostly white and male - is we perhaps fundamentally disagree on what 'racist' means. To me I view racism as a larger umbrella. Includes bias, both on the surface but also more broadly what has been cultivated as a society. Context is very important in my definition viewpoint. centuries of historic oppression, which led to unequal wealth, opportunity, and more. ongo…

You don't get to magically redefine what "racist" is because the current definition doesn't match up with your narrative.

Suburbs are de facto and de jure not racist. No one is stopping any race of people from moving to the suburbs, no law is stopping any members of any race from moving to the suburbs, etc.

You can definitely make the claim that suburbs are classist, but racist? No.

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#333

Post by BirdieNZ »

u678u wrote: post #313
arcticbull wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Japan is the classical example where they have national zoning rules permitting residential development in each zone. You can get a place in downtown Tokyo for like $300K USD. [1] > While the cost of housing is climbing in many global cities, the average middle-class family in Tokyo can still afford to buy a new, single-family detached home for $300,000. That’s right. The typical Tokyo starter home is a brand new thr…

Japan is a terrible example. It has near-zero immigration. Its population is now falling is the same as it was 30 years ago. In the 80s it had the highest most unaffordable prices in the world.

Tokyo didn't have near-zero immigration for most of the last 70 years. It's a great example.

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#334

Post by machinehermiter »

zachware wrote: post #238

I've developed several multifamily projects including my current focus, a 72-unit apartment development. Proposals like these, while admirable, usually miss the mark and have little to no impact on housing availability because they fail to accept that housing development isn't just about zoning. Impact fees, planning regs (traffic, parking, etc), planning delays, NIMBY fights, labor costs...these are all inputs into…

Why not free markets though? Why is this concept so dirty?

The idea housing is so expensive is just ridiculous. There should theoretically be no arbitrage between renting and owning. The market is so distorted though that the idea is a joke.

If there is something that free markets would do a very good job at solving it is this problem. If we don't believe in that at least we are really in trouble.

The really sad thing is this is just crushing poor people with rents. No one would be helped more by free markets in real estate than poor people.

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#336

Post by notacoward »

pdonis wrote: post #307
notacoward wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe you can't imagine ever being connected to any other place than the one you live in right now I've lived 20 places in my life, from New Zealand to Massachusetts. I know all about uprooting oneself to seek something better, broadening horizons, etc. Please stop making convenient personal assumptions.

> I've lived 20 places in my life, from New Zealand to Massachusetts. Then I fail to understand why you seem unable to comprehend why people might want to move. > Please stop making convenient personal assumptions. It seems to me that you are the one who is doing that: you seem to be assuming that, since you, after moving many times, have now found a place you want to stay in, nobody else can have any reason to move.

Are you just conflating "no reason to move" with "moving doesn't always solve a problem" for rhetorical effect? Because I find no value in that. Find another target.

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#337

Post by newsclues »

orthoxerox wrote: post #229
newsclues wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or midrises that are between 4plexes and large condos, are another option

Five-over-ones are nice medium density units, but they depend on public transit to be viable. If you can't get to work without a car (let's suppose those ground floor stores cover all your shopping needs) you need a parking spot, everyone and their partner needs a parking spot, and now the whole complex is surrounded by a huge parking lot.

Public transportation, bikes, and car sharing all make sense when cities are designed for it

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#338

Post by enraged_camel »

carom wrote: post #235
jankyxenon wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Highly progressive people continue to self segregate into very non-diverse neighborhoods when buying houses.

This was my experience working at Google. Very liberal until you start talking about upzoning, then suddenly "some neighborhoods should keep their character".

NIMBY does not mean conservative. Indeed, one of the most annoying things about NIMBYs is that they come in all political shapes and sizes. :)

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#339

Post by CryptoPunk »

austincheney wrote: post #242
eloff wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they're condos, you can own it, at least as much as you can own half a duplex. If they're rental units, that's also ok, more supply brings down rents and lower rent causes more landlords to sell. Extra supply does add downward pressure on prices one way or another. I don't see where the "value destroyer" is.

> more supply brings down rents People say that on here all the time, but I have never seen that happen. Do you have an example where increased housing supply lowered prices aside from a natural or market disaster? Maybe, Detroit where people simply abandoned their homes with no intent to sell.

Multiple examples provided in this article:

https://www.sightline.org/2017/09/21/yes-you-can-build-your-...

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#340

Post by cheriot »

ta2164 wrote: post #331
cheriot wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"They are de facto not barred from suburbs, meaning suburbs are de facto not racist" You're pretending that explicit racism is the only form of racism. Modern zoning was invented precisely because the Supreme Court outlawed explicit racial zoning. It was designed to racially segregate and continues to do so. Example: "More than 80% of America’s large metropolitan areas were more racially segregated in 2019 than they…

>You're pretending that explicit racism is the only form of racism. I'm not pretending, racism is racism, you don't get to redefine what words mean in order to fit your narrative. Suburbs are de facto and de jure not racist . >Modern zoning was invented precisely because the Supreme Court outlawed explicit racial zoning. This is not entirely true. Zoning laws in LA and NYC predate explicit racial zoning, and survived…

> I'm not pretending, racism is racism, you don't get to redefine what words mean in order to fit your narrative.

I’m done arguing with a throwaway account if you’re going to be intentionally naive. “It’s not racist because it doesn’t specifically talk about race” is logical cowardice.

The rest of your comment is similarly tortured. That some POC succeed despite racism does not mean racism doesn’t exist.

Post reply on HN