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

Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

darrellowens.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 1001 posts

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#41

Post by thepasswordis »

mschuster91 wrote: post #19
thepasswordis wrote: post #5

Wow that's great news! The level of bureaucratic creep that has been imposed on property owners is actually unbelievable to me. I obviously understand some regulations (you can't built a chemical processing plant in a residential neighborhood, obviously), but cities have creeped themselves into all-powerful overseers. Most cities now have the power to tell you what kind of house you can build, how you can paint it, h…

> how you can landscape it, what kinds of cars you can keep in your own driveway These two at least make some sense. The former, landscaping restrictions, can be used to prevent people from creating groundwater issues or flood risks, and the latter... no one wants a neighbor in a residential zone keeping broken-down trash cars out in the open. Some things have to be regulated even in a relatively free society because…

>no one wants a neighbor in a residential zone keeping broken-down trash cars out in the open.

Do those neighbors care what I want?

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#42

Post by LewisVerstappen »

m00x wrote: post #27
lalaithion wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they had homes, it wouldn't be called homelessness. You can take fentanyl in an apartment.

It's a lot more comfortable to take drugs at home, too. They would take homes if they could.

SF/LA has numerous programs that will give you housing if you're homeless. The issue is that many of the homeless refuse to take up these programs and insist on staying in their tents.... so... no?

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#43

Post by dahfizz »

gretch wrote: post #39
ethanbond wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth, most zoning is created by property owners, too. Gotta preserve their investment at the expense of our nation's growth.

As a property owner, I've always found this to be remarkably short sighted. If the city booms, land value goes up. E.g. Manhattan. Trying to keep your small suburb a small suburb isn't maximizing investor value. edit: to responders, yes I'm aware houses have other value. My comment is in response the parent comment that specifically addresses investment value protection aspect.

Some people just want to live in a small suburb

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#44

Post by dgoodell »

jxramos wrote: post #35

> The city councils and zoning boards had zero authority to deny the projects. Zero. How did this authority come to be in the first place? How did cities magically get this authority to dictate how people should build. I imagine such laws didn’t always exist, how far back does this stuff go? Likewise how did states get authority over the cities on local matters that have to be obeyed?

I think it started in Euclid Ohio and went to the Supreme Court.

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#45

Post by trilobyte »

ketzo wrote: post #12
jvanderbot wrote: post #6

In principle, I hate this. Cities should be able to plan their own growth. In practice, coming from CA, I am 100% onboard. It's a mess of red tape and bullshit lawsuits.

Yeah, it's a hamfisted solution, but only because it has to be. And as the state government has said -- cities can still plan their own growth! They just have to plan some growth rather than none, which, obviously, is the sticking point.

Exactly right. The cities had a long time to implement less clumsy plans but kept caving to local political groups funded by wealthy people. I'm not against those people having their opinions be part of a solution, but up until now it's been almost entirely driven by that group, and they were unwilling to give up enough to find workable middle ground. It was always token concessions. Maybe this will be a wake-up call.

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#46

Post by villagevanguard »

DoneWithAllThat wrote: post #37

So when and if this takes effect, what do self proclaimed YIMBYs think is going to happen to everything in these cities that aren’t housing? Schools, roads, grocery stores, public transit, parks, etc. Is the thinking that they’re just going to magically be expanded to meet the massively higher density than these areas were ever planned to built for?

Yes.

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#48

Post by kqr2 »

How would the builder's remedy work in a place like Atherton if the homeowners form a pact and refuse to sell to any developers? E.g. if Marc Andreessen (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/marc-andre...) and Steph Curry (https://therealdeal.com/2023/01/29/steph-curry-shoots-his-ni...) form a coalition with other residents then they can effectively keep the city down zoned even if builder's remedy is applied?

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#49

Post by fishtoaster »

The part that I'm sure many here are skimming for:

> HCD reviewed SF’s housing element and said it “largely compiled” with the state’s rules, even though it was heavy on promises. As such, SF will not be subjected to the builder remedy on Wednesday.

(But it's an interesting piece in general and you should read the whole thing for important context!)

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#50

Post by GalenErso »

david2ndaccount wrote: post #33

From my observation, these new housing developments are built without adequate parking and without improvements to the streets, leading to congested messes and worsening already bad traffic. How people can see this as a positive is unknown to me.

Denser cities lead to less traffic on a per capita basis, not more.
Post reply on HN