> a very old law from the 1990s
LOL. It's things like this that let me know how old I am.
Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow
51–60 of 1001 posts
Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow
#52The "local control" freaks have misapprehended the entire situation. The state of California is not analogous to the federal system of the United States. Cities have no powers other than those granted by the state, no natural right to exist, and continue to exist only at the sufferance of the state legislature. The legislature can disincorporate any city with a simple majority. Cities like Santa Monica should be relieved if land use planning is the only power they lose. The state would be well within its rights and powers to conclude that the existence of Santa Monica is not in the public interest and to assign their lands to Los Angeles.
Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow
#53Wow 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…
actually I don't care about what car my neighbor drives and would not like your views to increase my rent.
Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow
#54How 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 i…
The writer does indirectly allude to this:
" There’s a lot of questions still unanswered, though. This will all be legally challenged since we’re in new territory with the HAA. Many developers still can’t believe it and aren’t sure to propose nor have readied capital to propose projects. Other builders since the Santa Monica news appear quite excited to build apartments in exclusive, expensive enclaves they’ve always wanted to. There’s a political question too about whether HCD will let substandard housing elements through just to not anger cities and incite backlash. "
Very likely the 'political question' will not be limited to 'whether HCD will let substandard housing elements through'.
Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow
#55This seems like a way to reduce homelessness and fix the housing market in one fell swoop.
> reduce homelessness Is the homeless problem due to the cost of housing? Or is it moreso due to fentanyl?
People enter homelessness and drug use from both directions. Many homeless are not addicts and more affordable housing will help get those off the street and keep more people at the margin in more stable housing situations. This will in turn help make services more available for the drug using homeless.
Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow
#56So 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?
I mean, I don't think the YIMBY movement always speaks with a single voice, but I do think there's an understanding that infrastructure will have to keep up.
The thing is that in order to expand infrastructure, you need
- public pressure and demonstrated need for that expansion
- tax dollars to fund the expansion
and the quickest way to get both of those is... to build more homes and put people in them. I don't think there's any magic involved, just time and necessity.
Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Except when that small suburb is in a not-small town (Eg: many parts of SF, Berkeley Sunnyvale, etc.)
Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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, they don't. These exact sorts of "well nobody likes" arguments are why the bureaucracy has the reach it does and CA has the problems it does. Yes, society probably won't crumble if we cave to your whining and regulate your pet issue of the minute but regulating in this manner is like littering in the park, if everyone does it the park is ruined. If people are poisoning the groundwater or creating other "off their…
>Yes, society probably won't crumble if we cave to your whining and regulate your pet issue of the minute
I disagree, and I think this sort of nonsense is a cornerstone of why society is crumbling. People don't look at their homes as homes they look at them as temporary investments that they hope to sell to somebody else for more money in the future. People don't end up investing (in the societal, emotional sense) into their communities and their homes because they recognize that they don't really own them.
Give the rights back to the people to own their homes and they start to care again. Tell property investors that I'm sorry, but actually you might have to deal with a guy who doesn't give a shit about weeds and likes to work on his car in the driveway next to your investment and maybe houses stop being such a safe speculative vehicle.
Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow
#59So 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?
Because suddenly overnight all the single family housing will be replaced with townhouses?
Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow
#60So 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.
King. Gigachad level response