Live data from Hacker News

Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

latimes.com

131–140 of 180 posts

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

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Cities don't need to grow far upwards if they just throw out cars. 3-5 floors are plenty

Tell that to delivery drivers

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

#132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 enco…

What is the better way to satisfy housing demand than to build housing?

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

#133
post #120

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 th…

I want a constitutional amendment granting some property rights.

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

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Cities don't need to grow far upwards if they just throw out cars. 3-5 floors are plenty

Agreed 3-5 is plenty; one of the worst parts about these sorts of overly-onerous regulations is that the regulatory overhead and expense is per project and not per floor or per dwelling. This makes it all the more difficult for 'modest' or 'common-sense' upward development.

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

#135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cities don't need to grow far upwards if they just throw out cars. 3-5 floors are plenty

Tell that to delivery drivers

When talking about "throwing out cars" I suspect what most would mean is re-architecting cities to be less car-dependent.

Walkable cities with well integrated public transit and mixed retail, restaurants/cafes and residential, so that you don't need a car to go and do your grocery shopping, get a coffee or even most regular purchases.

Many (most?) European cities are like this to a greater or lesser degree - you still get deliveries, but you can walk, or ride a bike, or catch a bus/tram/metro to most places you want to go. You don't eliminate cars, but driving a car isn't the default option because it's more convenient not to. But if you need a car for something, well, that's still an option.

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

#136
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> any argument predicated on "preserving the character" is disingenuous at best and racist at worst Calling NIMBYism's "preserving the character" argument disingenuous is probably going too far. That really is the problem many NIMBYs have with proposed developments. They like their neighbourhood exactly how it is, and if they could mandate perfect stasis they would. It may not be a persuasive argument, but in many ca…

> They like their neighbourhood exactly how it is, and if they could mandate perfect stasis they would. Y'know, if a community wants to have _perfect_ stasis like that, it should be allowed. Which of course also means that when you sell your property, any gains in land value should also be taxed away and the property's max rent should also be locked in at purchase time. This would of course, even more preserve the ch…

Well their property tax does stay in perfect stasis, at least in cali ;)

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

#137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 enco…

> A large number of people who live in the project are people on section 8 and disability with no ties to the region whatsoever.

No ties besides… living in said community. How is the disability status of residents relevant to your classification of the project as a failure? Are you advocating for federal housing aid to come with requirements like “locals only” and “non-disabled residents only”?

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

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why do you feel development through sprawl would be easier to get through CEQA than building upwards? (As someone currently serving on a Local Agency Formation Commission, I actually think I would have told you the opposite?...)

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

#139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell that to delivery drivers

When talking about "throwing out cars" I suspect what most would mean is re-architecting cities to be less car-dependent. Walkable cities with well integrated public transit and mixed retail, restaurants/cafes and residential, so that you don't need a car to go and do your grocery shopping, get a coffee or even most regular purchases. Many (most?) European cities are like this to a greater or lesser degree - you stil…

[deleted]

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

#140

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 like living in a small rural town.

Well, fine, live in one that's actually rural because it's rural, not because of NIMBY regulations keeping it in some weird artificial bubble. There are a shitload of them all over the west.

This is a legit rural town: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakeview,_Oregon - it's never going to be a big town because it's very remote. It's quite charming in its own way.

Post reply on HN