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

171–180 of 180 posts

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

#171

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.

I looked up Point Reyes Station CDP in the latest Census and the median age is 67 years. I hope you realize how deeply fucked up that is.

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

#172

Post by SllX »

dolni wrote: post #170
SllX wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That co-equal nonsense is Nixon era propaganda from when he was gearing up to fight impeachment. The fact that Congress buys into it and sells the merch because it is made up of people who don’t want to actually do their job is just another of a long list of disappointments that Congress churns out on the regular, but to put this in perspective: by the letter of the Constitution only Congress can impeach and remove f…

Congress certainly has some extraordinary powers. The exercise of those powers also requires an extraordinarily large hurdle be cleared. Whereas the President can issue sweeping policy changes via executive order and veto non-supermajority legislation (a ONE person decision), Congress requires a majority in one chamber to initiate impeachment and a super-majority in the other to convict. Look at Trump. Every reason i…

That’s the thing though. The President only has the powers as designated in the Constitution, mostly in Article II, and what Congress gives him per their legislative authority.

Any power they have given, they can also strip away. Any office they have instituted, they can also remove. Any cabinet position they created can also be removed. Any Presidential appointment including Article III judges and justices can be impeached and removed.

Executive orders only go as far as the President’s authority either over his branch (the entire Executive power) or through laws which he is charged to enforce. The reason he has a lot of discretion is precisely because Congress gives a lot of discretion, and they really don’t have to.

But, somehow we have managed to for a while now elect mostly mooks that don’t particularly want their power. The framers imagined branches of government which would jealously guard the powers they did have, but that doesn’t really work if a branch is not jealously guarding its own power. Open primaries were probably a mistake, because it leaves legislators vulnerable to primary challengers backed by Presidents and other powerful Government Officers.

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

#173

Post by crhulls »

ip26 wrote: post #155
bastawhiz wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. > Forcing a town of I'm not sure what does alter the housing problem if not housing. It seems your position is "don't com…

I think the point is adding 10% more units to Point Reyes dramatically alters the town but increases the total housing supply of greater Marin County by zilch.

Yes, exactly this. It doesn't really solve any problems (see my other comments - you can literally find affordable housing units propped up as vacation rentals on AirBnB). Putting huge apartment buildings in 1,000 person towns is very different than building upwards in city centers or along transportation corridors.

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

#174

Post by nomel »

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…

> So I'm not sure where this notion of Berkeley being a ghost town is coming from.

As someone that now lives far from Berkeley, I was just asking for better indication of activity than a knowingly ephemeral group passing through. It's silly evidence.

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

#175

Post by diob »

crhulls wrote: post #153
morganherlocker wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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”?

My point is that people advocate for these projects so the people who can work in the town can live in the town. So, if someone from out of town who can't work moves in, it undermines the point of the project. In that sense, the disability status is relevant. I think housing that does require you to work in the community is fair and logical. Otherwise do we just build projects in high end places that essentially just…

To be honest I kind of doubt there's a large enough amount of said folks that this would be worth doing (do you have a source beyond "large numbers"?).

Besides, even disabled need a place to live, and they are probably contributing to the region by purchasing goods.

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

#176

Post by smegger001 »

devoutsalsa wrote: post #160
humanistbot wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

At some point the population has to stop growing. There’s not an infinite amount of everything (water, arable land, etc.) If you treat the world like it’s an all you can eat buffet, eventually we’ll be eating faster than the world can fill replenish the buffet, and something else will probably break before we get to that point.

people have been predicting a Malthusian Collapse for centuries. Every time it gets close we have invented and innovated our way out of it. we already know how to do it we don't because it is marginally less expensive and labor intensive.

Arable land running low go vertical, hydroponic farming is capable of growing far more in the same footprint. water running low is easy to fix instead of wasting thousands of gallons of water spraying a whole field, drip feed individual plants, where that is not feasable wind and solar powered desalination is a option. also fix water consumption laws tax heavy water users rather than home consumption.

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

#177

Post by MaxDPS »

ketzo wrote: post #8
exogeny wrote: post #3

Good. NIMBYs are a huge problem, and any argument predicated on "preserving the character" is disingenuous at best and racist at worst. It's sad that legislation once designed to do so much good has been weaponized by such obstructionists.

If nothing else, I hope Newsom can cement an identity as the "anti-NIMBY governor." S.B. 9 [1] was a great step. This also sends a pretty stark message. [1] https://focus.senate.ca.gov/sb9

Newsom has helped pass a bunch of anti-NIMBY legislation. I know it will take some time for it to have an effect but I’m actually a bit hopeful for once.

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

#178

Post by bastawhiz »

crhulls wrote: post #173
ip26 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point is adding 10% more units to Point Reyes dramatically alters the town but increases the total housing supply of greater Marin County by zilch.

Yes, exactly this. It doesn't really solve any problems (see my other comments - you can literally find affordable housing units propped up as vacation rentals on AirBnB). Putting huge apartment buildings in 1,000 person towns is very different than building upwards in city centers or along transportation corridors.

It would seem to me that the people moving to Point Reyes aren't the sort of folks who want to live in an "affordable" studio apartment. So either the folks who'd live in those apartments are taking on a high cost of living with an absurd commute for the hell of it, or you don't actually care about the blue collar folks who are being gentrified out.

If vacation rentals are actually a meaningful problem, have the city ban them. It's really that easy. Airbnb isn't a new phenomenon, and if anyone actually cared about the people being displaced instead of the buildings, they'd already be banned.

The character of a town is more than just the buildings, it's the people who live there, too. It's obvious where the priorities are.

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

#179

Post by gamblor956 »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #92
gamblor956 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the law clearly states that enrollment increases are not, on their own, subject to CEQA: From TTOTFL itself: "This bill would delete the provision requiring the environmental effects relating to changes in enrollment levels be considered in the EIR prepared for the long-range development plan. The bill would provide that enrollment or changes in enrollment, by themselves, do not constitute a project for purposes…

It doesn't look like the relevant law is actually changing. There is a provision being deleted: > Environmental effects relating to changes in enrollment levels shall be considered for each campus or medical center of public higher education in the environmental impact report prepared for the long range development plan for the campus or medical center. This already doesn't say that enrollment levels require their ow…

You literally stated that the relevant law isn't changing...right before bringing up how the relevant law is changing, so I'm not really sure there's much point in continuing this discussion if you're just going to ignore countervailing facts to maintain your contrarian position.

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

#180

Post by thaumasiotes »

gamblor956 wrote: post #179
thaumasiotes wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't look like the relevant law is actually changing. There is a provision being deleted: > Environmental effects relating to changes in enrollment levels shall be considered for each campus or medical center of public higher education in the environmental impact report prepared for the long range development plan for the campus or medical center. This already doesn't say that enrollment levels require their ow…

You literally stated that the relevant law isn't changing...right before bringing up how the relevant law is changing, so I'm not really sure there's much point in continuing this discussion if you're just going to ignore countervailing facts to maintain your contrarian position.

I stated that the text of the law was changing in a way that made no change to the requirements imposed by the law. You can't see the difference?
Post reply on HN