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

111–120 of 180 posts

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

#111

Post by crhulls »

ryukafalz wrote: post #108
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 cl…

If you talk to the people who grew up here, even the ones who were forced to move due to costs are not supportive of the current affordable housing plans. They want to come back and visit the town they grew up in.

For example, I have a caretaker on my property who lives in a trailer and even he doesn't want the plans to go through - he wants the town to stay rural.

I'm also on the village association and while almost everyone agrees there should be more affordable housing, we are almost all opposed to the broad brush stroke way it is being done. Huge apartment buildings in a small town is very different than doing things like limiting vacation rentals and allowing ADUs.

I suppose my main point is that there is a lot of nuance involved - it isnt as simple as NIMBY bad YIMBY good.

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

#112

Post by crhulls »

jeffbee wrote: post #105
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.

I grew up there in the 80s and 90s. It is a really tough challenge. It is important to note that almost all the people, even those forced out due to cost, are opposed to the current affordable housing plans.

The statewide legislation is a very blunt instrument. It doesn't work well for small towns.

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

#113

Post by mperham »

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.

No, what it does is force development thru sprawl which decimates wild lands. Our cities need to grow upwards, not outwards.

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

#114

Post by jimbokun »

falcolas wrote: post #5

Seems like an odd move to undercut the checks and balances courts are supposed to have over legislation. Enacting a law solely to undercut a court's decision seems spurious, and may blow back on both the legislation and the school.

No that is exactly how it is supposed to work.

The judiciary rules on laws as written. And the legislature can then pass new laws to alter existing ones.

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

#115

Post by jimbokun »

dolni wrote: post #68
maerF0x0 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also it's good when courts enforce poorly written laws as a forcing function to have law makers (legislature) write useful laws. Sometimes the laws as written are nearly useless

I don't agree. That's an overly-simplified, idealistic view. Real people suffer real harms from the unintended consequences of poorly written laws. Our courts should help serve as a last line of defense against that, when appropriate.

That just becomes a dictatorship of the judiciary, who often times cannot be voted out.

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

#116

Post by jeffbee »

crhulls wrote: post #112
jeffbee wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I grew up there in the 80s and 90s. It is a really tough challenge. It is important to note that almost all the people, even those forced out due to cost, are opposed to the current affordable housing plans. The statewide legislation is a very blunt instrument. It doesn't work well for small towns.

The RHNA allocation for unincorporated Marin County is only 184 homes over the next 8 years, for the entire county of 828 square miles. Are you saying we can't figure out how to put one new dwelling on every 3000 acres?

Edit: er, that was the previous 8 years. The next 8 years calls for 3569 new dwellings.

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

#117

Post by illirik »

TYPE_FASTER wrote: post #66
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay - serious question - with current building codes - how does anyone tear down a house in SF and rebuild anything - let alone split a narrow lot in 2 and build two duplexes on that? The duplexes would be like 30% stairs, right? This seems like a $5M+ investment to end up with 4 500 sqft 1-window studios (at best) that would be absurdly cashflow negative, and none of them would sell for $1M... SB 9 economically doe…

I've seen this problem solved using exterior stairs in the back of the building.

This is how it's done in Chicago - neighborhoods full of 2-to-4-flats with one set of interior stairs, a 1000-sqft-ish 2br unit on each floor, and a back staircase / deck made of wood, where you can grill out and mingle with your neighbors. Good living

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

#118

Post by xiaosun »

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…

"The main reason people live there is to feel remote and rural. It is a way of life."

Marin County is one of the most segregated counties in the Bay Area, and by design from legacy housing policies. It's hard to ignore the fact that "preserving the essence" is the same thing as "continue to be a heavily segregated" locale.

"An inordinate number of the most segregated cities in the Bay Area are smaller cities that are more than 85 percent white in Marin County (Ross, Belvedere, Sausalito, San Anselmo, Fairfax, and Mill Valley are each in the top 10). Two of the top 10 are similarly small-sized, heavily white cities in San Mateo County (Portola Valley and Woodside)."

https://belonging.berkeley.edu/racial-segregation-san-franci...

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

#119

Post by eldavido »

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'm pro-development, but, to a point. I actually agree with most of this. It seems the height of hubris for lawmakers in Sacramento to insist that no, you 350 people in this town, you don't know how the town should be developed, we're going to mandate it for you and force you to do it how we want, local character and situation be damned.

I think the middle ground is that you have to be careful about what zoning and planning codes do and don't allow. In my view, a property owner like you should have pretty broad discretion about how a place gets developed. A lot of very nice-looking town centers developed in the late 1800s/early 1900s (North America) without zoning. It got done because it worked, more expensive/taller/nicer buildings near the middle of the city (on more valuable land) and less-expensive, "lower" uses toward the periphery. It's simple market incentives. The trouble comes when the tax code, zoning, or other policies discourage the natural, higher-intensity development from creating more housing on higher-value land. You're just looking at the incentives and being a good businessperson. People (blue collar) want a place to live. You're giving it to them at a price they can afford. This should be celebrated, not vilified.

I also own (market rate) low-income housing. In the neighborhood where I grew up, there are a bunch of lots with older houses sitting vacant. I own an apartment there and would love to convert some of the existing (empty) houses into duplexes/four-plexes, but can't out of a misguided sense of it being a "single-family neighborhood". This makes no sense. I'm turning something people don't want, into something they do. The zoning completely ignores market forces out of a misguided attempt for neighbors to force their view onto other property owners.

It's well-intentioned but, as other posters have said, carries a huge cost we need to talk about more openly.

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

#120

Post by vwoolf »

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…

If you want to control a given parcel of land, buy it. If you don't own it, then you shouldn't get to control it. You're telling other people what they should or should not be able to build and, in the process, are creating society-wide distortions that systematically raise the cost of living: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/mac.20170388. Read that carefully.

It's amazing how no one attaches numbers to these kinds of points of view: a GDP increase of more than 1/3 is a tremendous amount of money. NIMBYs make us all poorer.

Post reply on HN