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

141–150 of 1001 posts

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

#141

Post by fasthands9 »

kqr2 wrote: post #48

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 i…

I think that's fine. I dont think the point of this is to confiscate land that people own and build condos on it. But realistically real estate ownership is pretty disperse, even in small town called Atherton there are going to be thousands of individuals that own 1 acre plots and maybe a hundred that own larger plots. It just takes a couple people to choose to sell their land or to die.

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

#142

Post by freedomben »

jimbob45 wrote: post #84
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…

Most cities now have the power to tell you what kind of house you can build, how you can paint it, how you can landscape it, what kinds of cars you can keep in your own driveway, what you can do in your leisure time on the property etc. In my experience, the city regulations around what you’ve listed are always sensible. It’s the HOA regulations that tend to be kooky and capricious.

Your experience sounds outdated. It was like that 10 years ago, even 5 years ago in many cities, but in the last few years so many cities have gotten into HOA territory. Even small cities in places you wouldn't expect.

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

#144

Post by jedberg »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #119
mc32 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Goodbye "high-rises can't be built in SF because they cast an unsightly shadow". But also hope it doesn't mean California gets to regulate San Jose's "green belt".

isn't building high-rises in SF precarious because the ground is soft, with inadequate bedrock? are there also concerns about aesthetics, if i understand?

From what I understand it's about the same as building in Tokyo. With modern technology and proper materials you can build a safe building. But the residential tower currently sinking into the ground indicates that either that isn't actually true or the rules aren't being enforced.

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

#145

Post by notch898a »

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #112
la64710 wrote: post #7

Soon the peaceful suburbs of California will look like congested cities like Seoul or Mumbai with a whole bunch of slums thrown in between.

Have you ever been to Mumbai? Have you been inside their newer luxury buildings? It has many issues, but the modern tall buildings in Mumbai are amazing and are the solution to many of their issues. If the US would start to build new buildings like Mumbai or Singapore more Americans would realize just what luxury and space a condo could have! Mumbai needs more walkability (through super blocks and such), better trash…

I would probably create a bridge or something over the slums. Cheap enough toll to not be much for the people living in the condos, but expensive enough those living in squalor below find it unaffordable. Then you could pretty much live your life going from middle class+ establishment to the next without having to think about the slums below. The bridge would also double as a shelter over any leaking tarp roofs below.

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

#146

Post by metalforever »

LewisVerstappen wrote: post #42
m00x wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

no, dealing with this issue with a friend in SF right now, theres a waitlist and its long.

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

#148

Post by iskander »

LewisVerstappen wrote: post #10
p0pcult wrote: post #2

This 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?

Homeless population by state is more or less a map of housing cost: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/homeless-po...

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

#149

Post by PuppyTailWags »

causi wrote: post #83

I get not wanting to suddenly put an extra five hundred families onto a road that was only designed for a hundred single-family dwellings. What I don't get is being so nimby that you'd rather have your streets utterly full of homeless people and human waste.

I don't think that it's a preference either/or for nimby people. It's important to steelman arguments to better understand the incentives of people. My understanding is that there is a personal desire not to have one's personal life rapidly disrupted by increased demand of communal resources such as road space. There's a desire to consistently put off this rapid change. The second-order effects like an increased presence of homelessness doesn't intuitively have to do with not building an apartment: you can reason to yourself as a homeowner that these are people not even from your suburb community, but strangers invading it and ruining it, adding to the notion that more people decreases your quality of life personally.

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

#150

Post by dsfyu404ed »

Finnucane wrote: post #74
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…

>(you can't built a chemical processing plant in a residential neighborhood, obviously) You can get darn close in some places. I mean, in Texas, residential damage and evacuations from chemical plant explosions are practically routine. I live in a neighborhood surrounded by biotech labs, which tend not to blow up, though we do joke a bit about being zombie-apocalypse-ground-zero (also, every available developable lot…

>You can get darn close in some places. I mean, in Texas, residential damage and evacuations from chemical plant explosions are practically routine.

Because the plants always got built on the outskirts and then the outskirts expanded.

The same thing used to happen in the formerly industrial parts of CA before CA kicked out most of its heavy industry over the decades.

Post reply on HN