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

301–310 of 1001 posts

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

#301

Post by civilian »

nemo44x wrote: post #181
jedberg wrote: post #127

There is a developer in Cupertino who has been fighting with the city for years, who got awfully quiet lately. Now I know why. I suspect they have a plan for an absolutely massive high rise behind my house that they will be submitting at 8am tomorrow morning. My neighbors are going to be pissed .

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.

holy shit I love oligarchy now

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

#302

Post by lovecg »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #242
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…

> don't want to deal with people deciding together that they want their community to have certain guidelines, move to the country Shouldn’t this be the message to a suburban homeowner clinging to the past? Move to the country. Buy land around you. Don’t tell others what they can and cannot do on property you don’t own.

Devil’s advocate: they did. 50+ years ago they moved to a sleepy suburban town that through no fault of their own became a center of a worldwide tech revolution. Things change, sometimes dramatically. A place in the country you move to today can also transform 50 years in the future if you’re unlucky.

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

#303

Post by kevinburke »

tsuru wrote: post #195

I don't live in the area but I like the idea that the codes are updated to match the population. I hope there are some provisions for "access to sunlight" as the buildings grow -- something like Japan's Nisshoken policies... or I'd like to hear how that isn't a good idea for city planning.

The provision for "access to sunlight" is a code requirement that every bedroom needs to have a window.

If you are concerned about access on your property, you can purchase a height easement from your neighbors.

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

#305

Post by TedShiller »

opportune wrote: post #249
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.

Where does this narrative about evil greedy developers come from? If the new housing represents a net increase in people, then the developers are filling unmet demand. It’s not that different from restricting the supply of milk and getting angry that milk producers will make more money when those restrictions are lifted. Yeah, they will, but only because there is more demand for their product than they were previousl…

[flagged]

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

#306

Post by arrosenberg »

ericmay wrote: post #212

I loathe the suburbs and car-only infrastructure. It's backwards, bone-headed, and downright treacherously stupid. In addition to zoning reform we should nationally remove mandatory parking minimums. Hell, if anything we should de-zone strip malls and any new development that practically requires a car to get to (implementation details fuzzy). But I do have sympathy for people who move to a location or community for…

> There is real harm done, and it is anti-democratic in some ways to take state or national laws and have those supercede (micromanage in this case) local building rules or regulations.

You could just as easily argue it's pro-democratic because it lets the State break the power of the local, petty gentry to keep people from moving in.

Post reply on HN