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

Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 180 posts

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#81

Post by fshbbdssbbgdd »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #77
paxys wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like – legislature passed a law, a certain group of people took advantage of the law in ways the general public didn't intend, the courts said "we have to rule by the letter of the law", legislature amended the law, now most people happy again. This is exactly how the process should work.

I disagree this is not the intended purpose of environmental review laws. The whole point is to allow the citizens themselves to put checks on the unbounded growth of the population and the degradation of the environment as a result. This appears to be politicians attempting to have their cake and eat it too. Environmental review laws are passed specifically because of the concerns raised by the citizens they represe…

Moving people moving to Berkeley is good for the environment. It has a low carbon footprint per resident: https://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/maps

To protect the environment, we must allow increased urban density so people are not forced into further suburban sprawl. Doing it in a place like Berkeley with limited heating/cooling energy needs is a no-brainer.

The fatal flaw of CEQA is it doesn’t contemplate the environmental impact of not building the project. Ultimately, the earth suffers as more damaging development occurs in less-regulated places.

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#83

Post by casefields »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #10
vorpalhex wrote: post #2

> Assemblyman Vince Fong (R-Bakersfield) noted that environmental standards are not being changed. “We are changing what they apply to,” he said. Either the environmental review standards are good and needed.. or they are not. This is post-hoc ruling and I am curious how the court will react. The only thing the opposition needs to do here is run a few pressers with homeless students.

The environmental review process is broken [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/13/opinion/berkeley-enrollme...

Hogwash. CEQA is doing exactly what it was meant to do. By its very nature it's a conservative ideal that we should be careful about development.

That process slows/stops things you hate, but also things you like.

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#84

Post by genocidicbunny »

bubblethink wrote: post #53

Wouldn't this increase property values and rent too? What was the angle for NIMBY objection ? It seems like this will only increase demand but not the supply - an ideal NIMBY outcome.

Your average NIMBY doesn't want _any_ change. They want their neighborhoods to be preserved exactly the way they are without anything changing.

Higher property values is just a mask to hide the less palatable message of 'I want to ossify my neighborhood'.

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#86

Post by mbg721 »

genocidicbunny wrote: post #84
bubblethink wrote: post #53

Wouldn't this increase property values and rent too? What was the angle for NIMBY objection ? It seems like this will only increase demand but not the supply - an ideal NIMBY outcome.

Your average NIMBY doesn't want _any_ change. They want their neighborhoods to be preserved exactly the way they are without anything changing. Higher property values is just a mask to hide the less palatable message of 'I want to ossify my neighborhood'.

Another way to frame that is "I'm heavily personally invested in this neighborhood, and I don't want all the things that I love about it to be lost." Change for change's sake isn't necessarily good.

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#88

Post by strikelaserclaw »

jorblumesea wrote: post #71
paxys wrote: post #6

Good. I wish they'd sign more such laws to deal with all the property developments across San Francisco that are stuck in years-long "environmental review" or other similar bureaucratic hurdles put forward by NIMBY groups.

The problem is there's so much money to be made by driving up prices. You also have to contend with people who got in at this high price that will be angry if they ever crash significantly. Sadly there's too much actual capital and political capital in play.

someones gonna be sad either way, much rather let the minority pay for the majorities benefit.

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#89

Post by space_fountain »

casefields wrote: post #83
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The environmental review process is broken [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/13/opinion/berkeley-enrollme...

Hogwash. CEQA is doing exactly what it was meant to do. By its very nature it's a conservative ideal that we should be careful about development. That process slows/stops things you hate, but also things you like.

It was sold as a way to protect the environment but it doesn't help when business as usual is destroying the environment. It was also sold as a process requiring much less time and money than it takes now, but yes you are absolutely right that its fundamentally conservative and fundamentally locks in those with power under the current system. It needs reformed

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#90

Post by raldi »

jeffbee wrote: post #18
favorited wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny how the "they can't accept N students, there's not enough housing!" guy is simultaneously the "don't build any new housing" guy. And, as luck would have it, he's also the "don't increase density in existing housing structures" guy. What are the odds?

Also the "converted a duplex into a one-man home" guy. Also the "parks on the street for free" guy. What a surprise.

Best part of the story is how he spent a bunch of money on a lawsuit whose sole final result is that now UCB can grow without fear of future lawsuits. He would've been better off setting the money on fire.
Post reply on HN