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

261–270 of 1001 posts

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

#261

Post by nsxwolf »

yamtaddle wrote: post #138
dahfizz wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people just want to live in a small suburb

Everybody (for certain values of "everybody", I guess I should specify because this is HN) wants 0.5-5 acres on the edge of a nice, compact city. A little land, no close neighbors, but still very close to everything and the city itself is nice & pleasant to visit. But if too many people get it, you don't have a compact city anymore, you have a sprawl hellscape that's neither country nor city, but a habitat for cars.

I live in what you would probably call a sprawl hellscape, and I love it.

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

#262

Post by AdrianB1 »

whakim wrote: post #102
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…

The idea that property rights are totally inviolable doesn't really hold water when you think about it a little more. Stuff like electricity, running water, trash and recycling, roads, parks, schools, public safety, the technology behind your fridge/oven/heating/AC etc. only exist because of decades or even hundreds of years of robust public investment. Without any of that, you wouldn't even have a house!

What is the relation between property rights and services? Paying for consumption versus having property rights is orthogonal.

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

#263

Post by scop »

mullingitover wrote: post #200
nemo44x wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, people here celebrating this don't understand at all that all this does is give developers more power over communities they have no interest in but money. And of course, the politicians that they will fund/bribe to make this happen. We just went from democracy to oligarchy in this case.

So much of the problems with housing in the state stem from the fact that lots of community members are valuing their investment in their own house over everything else. Housing can either be affordable or it can be a good investment, it really can't be both. At this point the market has been so perverted by entrenched interests blocking new development that I would be okay with a dictatorship of developers for a sol…

This is a point I don't often see discussed. I have friends and family in CA whose primary asset is their home, with little to nothing invested elsewhere (perhaps because of the high cost of living)...resulting in a mortgage they have no intention of ever paying off, little retirement savings, and fingers crossed for a cash-out down the line.

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

#264

Post by ChuckMcM »

FWIW this has been a pretty epic journey and is a great way to illustrate how government can work, even when people with money are united against it doing so.

Still, the accusation that California should "do what they purport to believe in" still has quite the bite. As the 5th largest economy in the world it should be possible for California to demonstrate a reformed health care policy that is more in line with other developed countries but has not been able to. Just my $0.02.

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

#265

Post by HDThoreaun »

dragonwriter wrote: post #88
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?

> 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? They think that, as Santa Monica did, cities will quickly file compliant housing plans and get their zoning power back, with very few (compared to need or current size, not past pace of new development) builders remedy units, and after this initial round, cities won't play chi…

Santa Monica had half its required units filed via builder's remedy, and my understanding is that it still has not got its zoning approved.

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

#266

Post by Palpatineli »

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.

Sounds like the correct solution would be to sunset all existing zoning in a year or two and force cities to make new baggage free zoning rules.

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

#267

Post by silksowed »

epistasis wrote: post #189
silksowed wrote: post #143

ocean sky scrapers on the west side of the bay area? hard to even picture this

The coastal zone is also subject to Coastal Commission oversight, which I believe could override the Builder's Remedy, though the legal specifics would probably have to be settled in court, IIRC. Chris Elmendorf has written on this, if you want details. But the prospect of a long lawsuit or a long decision will be enough to kill nearly all Builders Remedy projects in the coastal zone, as it would jack up the risk of…

ahh makes sense. not sure how far in the coastal commission would have control, but even a 10 story building far enough in would drastically change the landscape of say the sunset district in San Francisco

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

#269

Post by lotsofpulp »

thepasswordis wrote: post #164
nlavezzo wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you don't want to deal with living near other people, move to the country. The reverse could also be said - if you don't want to deal with people deciding together that they want their community to have certain guidelines, move to the country. You can do pretty much whatever you want in rural areas without significantly impacting your neighbors. People living together in a small area do get to decide together wh…

Again this is where we are getting into what it means to own something. Do I own the property or not? If my neighbors want to get together and buy my house from me because they want to do something with it, then they are by all means allowed to do so.

>Do I own the property or not?

Yes, for the duration that you (and your crew) can defend it.

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

#270

Post by creeble »

toast0 wrote: post #81
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.

> Cities should be able to plan their own growth. They are able to plan their own growth, but they aren't able to refuse to grow. Or at least, not through zoning; being located where potable water or sewer/septic are at capacity is probably still valid to restrict new building.

It isn't. Afaik, there isn't a single water restriction plan in any CA jurisdiction (I've been looking).

Also, the "builder's remedy" specifically avoids EIRs of almost all types, including traffic and parking.

Post reply on HN