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

101–110 of 180 posts

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

#101

Post by crhulls »

I'll share an unpopular opinion, loosely in defense of some elements of NIMBYism.

I grew up in a small Marin County town called Point Reyes. It had 350 residents when I grew up, now maybe 1,000. The main reason people live there is to feel remote and rural. It is a way of life.

Given the proximity to San Francisco, the real estate prices have skyrocketed. Almost all my blue collar friends have had to move. It is sad that we have become a neighborhood for tourists and wealthy tech owner second homes. But, the character of the town remains, which is a nice silver lining.

With recent California rules, affordable housing is being forced by the state. Any open parking lot, any church, any building not considered "fully utilized" is now being allocated for low income units. Even most low income residents in the town don't like it, as it doesn't match the character of the area whatsoever - it undermines the very reason people live here to begin with.

I'm a unicorn founder so know I'm in a very privileged position. I actually bought a place in town which I'm turning in to multiple units for working class people because I didn't want someone else to buy it and turn it into a mansion. This is very different than state mandates that override any sort of local planning. I'm trying to help solve the problem while also preserving the essence of the community.

I think it is overly simplistic to call NIMBYs evil and YIMBYs good. I like living in a small rural town. People move here because they want that. Forcing a town of I also don't claim any moral high ground here - there is no right and wrong about this. We all have our desires about how we want the world to evolve, and I wish we could all respect the complexity of the situation vs putting people in competing good vs evil camps.

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

#102

Post by diob »

crhulls wrote: post #101

I'll share an unpopular opinion, loosely in defense of some elements of NIMBYism. I grew up in a small Marin County town called Point Reyes. It had 350 residents when I grew up, now maybe 1,000. The main reason people live there is to feel remote and rural. It is a way of life. Given the proximity to San Francisco, the real estate prices have skyrocketed. Almost all my blue collar friends have had to move. It is sad…

Property is tough in general. For most, they're coming into a game of monopoly that has realistically already ended.

While I feel for those who "own" not wanting things to change, I feel more for those relegated to go around a board that's entirely owned (at least the parts worth owning).

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

#103

Post by jeffbee »

tylerhou wrote: post #94
nomel wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A synthetic gathering is not related to the reduction in the natural hustle and bustle. Do you have any pictures before or after that group passed through?

As someone who lives near downtown Berkeley, there are plenty of people walking around and gathering during the day; particularly at the square area near Shattuck and Center. On University you see people lined up outside Berkeley Social Club/Imm Thai Street Food nearly every day. I've only been on southside a few times this year, but every weekend I've gone there were the normal amount of people there (basically the…

It’s such a ghost town that they opened the new apartment building at University and Shattuck only 90 days ago and it’s already more than 90% leased out.

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

#104

Post by genocidicbunny »

mbg721 wrote: post #100
genocidicbunny wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and that is the framing that is commonly used by NIMBYs. The trouble is, this is akin to trying to stop the ocean from breaking waves on the beach. The change is going to happen. You can stand against it, or you can work with it to get a mutually beneficial outcome. If you choose to stand against it, don't be surprised when the world either rolls you over or goes around you.

Quoted post unavailable.

Well if we keep going with that metaphor -- the crotchety rock might resist, but ultimately it ends up as sand on the beach as well. And the ocean cares not whether its waves pound a rocky or sandy shore.

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

#105

Post by jeffbee »

crhulls wrote: post #101

I'll share an unpopular opinion, loosely in defense of some elements of NIMBYism. I grew up in a small Marin County town called Point Reyes. It had 350 residents when I grew up, now maybe 1,000. The main reason people live there is to feel remote and rural. It is a way of life. Given the proximity to San Francisco, the real estate prices have skyrocketed. Almost all my blue collar friends have had to move. It is sad…

When did you grow up there and did anyone have babies and if so where did they expect them to live?

The current housing crisis is a demographic phenomenon created by longevity and birth rates 40 years ago. Those facts require the provision of a lot of new housing somewhere.

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

#106

Post by returningfory2 »

crhulls wrote: post #101

I'll share an unpopular opinion, loosely in defense of some elements of NIMBYism. I grew up in a small Marin County town called Point Reyes. It had 350 residents when I grew up, now maybe 1,000. The main reason people live there is to feel remote and rural. It is a way of life. Given the proximity to San Francisco, the real estate prices have skyrocketed. Almost all my blue collar friends have had to move. It is sad…

I entirely get the desire to live in a rural environment and keep Port Reyes as it is. The problem is that this desire is in direct conflict with housing being affordable. If everyone who lives in a non-dense neighborhood forces it to stay that way, new housing cannot be built and housing prices skyrocket because the population is increasing. This is literally the story of the Bay Area housing market.

I think there is a balance between not changing the built environment too much (the NIMBY position, say) and building enough new housing to keep prices reasonable (the YIMBY position). The problem is that over the last decades public policy has been dramatically in favor of the NIMBY position. And I think what we're seeing now is a backlash against this.

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

#107

Post by humanistbot »

crhulls wrote: post #101

I'll share an unpopular opinion, loosely in defense of some elements of NIMBYism. I grew up in a small Marin County town called Point Reyes. It had 350 residents when I grew up, now maybe 1,000. The main reason people live there is to feel remote and rural. It is a way of life. Given the proximity to San Francisco, the real estate prices have skyrocketed. Almost all my blue collar friends have had to move. It is sad…

Your position is indeed unpopular. Everything changes. The population keeps growing. Without development, there isn't enough space for all the kids of all the people you grew up with to stay in Point Reyes and have kids of their own.

Also, you don't just live in some random rural town. You live on the most scenic highway in the state, at the exit to a massively popular national seashore, in a major metropolitan area that has experienced massive growth.

And nobody is "forcing" development. That's all on the property owners. They are freely choosing to follow the financial incentives. The state "mandates" are just overriding local zoning laws that would have prohibited development by the property owners, or adding to the incentives for development. If the owners of a parking lot or the church want to keep it, the state would have to eminent domain it in order for it to be "allocated" for development.

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

#108

Post by ryukafalz »

crhulls wrote: post #101

I'll share an unpopular opinion, loosely in defense of some elements of NIMBYism. I grew up in a small Marin County town called Point Reyes. It had 350 residents when I grew up, now maybe 1,000. The main reason people live there is to feel remote and rural. It is a way of life. Given the proximity to San Francisco, the real estate prices have skyrocketed. Almost all my blue collar friends have had to move. It is sad…

> Given the proximity to San Francisco, the real estate prices have skyrocketed. Almost all my blue collar friends have had to move. It is sad that we have become a neighborhood for tourists and wealthy tech owner second homes. But, the character of the town remains, which is a nice silver lining.

You see why it’s become that, and why your blue collar friends have had to move though, right? It’s not just that it’s close to San Francisco; it’s that being close to San Francisco means lots of people want to live there, and there aren’t enough places near San Francisco for them to live.

The idea that any town should effectively push its existing residents out in pursuit of “preserving the character of the area” just seems wrong to me. Are the aesthetics more important than the people who live there?

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

#109

Post by paxys »

crhulls wrote: post #101

I'll share an unpopular opinion, loosely in defense of some elements of NIMBYism. I grew up in a small Marin County town called Point Reyes. It had 350 residents when I grew up, now maybe 1,000. The main reason people live there is to feel remote and rural. It is a way of life. Given the proximity to San Francisco, the real estate prices have skyrocketed. Almost all my blue collar friends have had to move. It is sad…

This isn't an uncommon view, and touches on a lot of fundamental questions that are mostly unanswerable.

What is a "town"? Is it comprised of 350 people living in a few houses and all the land which surrounds them? Do they get to decide how this common land should be used? Do they get to decide how private land next to them should be used, whether it belongs to a current resident or not? If person #351 wants to move in, should all existing residents get a vote?

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

#110

Post by crhulls »

returningfory2 wrote: post #106
crhulls wrote: post #101

I'll share an unpopular opinion, loosely in defense of some elements of NIMBYism. I grew up in a small Marin County town called Point Reyes. It had 350 residents when I grew up, now maybe 1,000. The main reason people live there is to feel remote and rural. It is a way of life. Given the proximity to San Francisco, the real estate prices have skyrocketed. Almost all my blue collar friends have had to move. It is sad…

I entirely get the desire to live in a rural environment and keep Port Reyes as it is. The problem is that this desire is in direct conflict with housing being affordable. If everyone who lives in a non-dense neighborhood forces it to stay that way, new housing cannot be built and housing prices skyrocket because the population is increasing. This is literally the story of the Bay Area housing market. I think there i…

I think there is obviously a balance. The problem is how it is being done. Currently Marin is going through something they call a housing element. They have hired a consultant group from LA to find lots they think would be good and are just rezoning things with a broad brush. I don't think the planners have even been to the county, let alone the town. The plan literally takes some of the vacant parts of town and encourages high density apartments.

The prior affordable housing has also backfired. They did a development 20 years ago that was meant to provide local housing. But, because it had federal backing, it meant anyone could apply. A large number of people who live in the project are people on section 8 and disability with no ties to the region whatsoever. They don't work in or contribute to the community, but rather just get free apartments.

To add insult to injury, many of the homes that were made under the original development became vacation rentals about 10 years after they were built (some expiration on deed restrictions or something).

Here is an example: https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/19192461?guests=1&adults=1&s=67...

Clearly this is not what was intended. There has to be a better way.

Post reply on HN