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

Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

darrellowens.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 289 posts

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#221

Post by nemo44x »

tekla wrote: post #206
nemo44x wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about all the things I have to haul? What if I don’t want to ride a bike or the weather is bad? What if I have kids? There’s a million reasons your solution is awful.

> What about all the things I have to haul? Rent a car. Millions of people do it just fine > What if I don’t want to ride a bike Deal with it > the weather is bad Deal with it > What if I have kids Kids ride bikes just fine.

I should rent a car multiple times every week? No thank you.

I don’t think people with infants and toddlers expect them to ride a bike. Taking kids around to their clubs and sports, etc isn’t practical.

I’m happy almost no one thinks like you do. You sound miserable. I hope you recover.

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#222

Post by NoPedantsThanks »

panick21_ wrote: post #82
NoPedantsThanks wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excellent news! More handouts for developers, targeting already-residential neighborhoods instead of mandating the redevelopment of blighted formerly-industrial and -commercial areas and dying malls with boarded-up Macy's and Fry's. And in a drought- and heat-stricken state, let's pave over what little soil remains, to prevent groundwater percolation and exacerbate urban "heat islands." This article regurgitates all…

> More handouts for developers Just like giving homeless people food is just handouts to farmers. > targeting already-residential neighborhoods instead of mandating the redevelopment of blighted formerly-industrial and -commercial areas and dying malls with boarded-up Macy's and Fry's. No neighborhood should ever allowed to be only restricted single family home. There is absolutely no justification for that what so e…

False equivalency galore there. Talk about ridiculous.

There's plenty of justification for allowing people to choose what type of neighborhood they want to live in. Downtown L.A. is not "full." If you want high-density living, that's already available. There's no reason to destroy already-residential neighborhoods when there are tracts of disused non-residential areas to convert into housing, or high-density areas that aren't fully occupied.

Nothing in these laws helps the homeless. Nothing. If you're eating from garbage cans, you're not going to be able to buy the "luxury" housing that developers are going to build, nor the ONE "affordable" unit they're required to include to get all kinds of waivers.

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#223

Post by NoPedantsThanks »

matrix87 wrote: post #77
NoPedantsThanks wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excellent news! More handouts for developers, targeting already-residential neighborhoods instead of mandating the redevelopment of blighted formerly-industrial and -commercial areas and dying malls with boarded-up Macy's and Fry's. And in a drought- and heat-stricken state, let's pave over what little soil remains, to prevent groundwater percolation and exacerbate urban "heat islands." This article regurgitates all…

Excellent news! Less property value for you! Next stop, no more prop 13 either

Yay, and then you can join the homeless when your taxes double overnight and render your life savings worthless!

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#224

Post by infecto »

amluto wrote: post #218
infecto wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just adding to my opinion. I might be totally wrong but it always felt to me that the Bay Area suffers from the problem of doing things that feel good but don’t improve outcomes for people. Regional transit in the Bay Area is pretty miserable unless your destination is near a BART line. Don’t get me wrong, it can work but it’s fairly limiting. For those with higher disposable income it’s no issue at all. Take Bart an…

> For those with higher disposable income it’s no issue at all. Not for those with small children. Unless you have a private chauffeur, transporting a family to somewhere without parking that is poorly served by transit is a pain. And if you’re going somewhere where traffic patterns make light rail favorable but you need last-mile transportation that isn’t well-served by transit, I guess you need two chauffeurs so th…

You are right and I was ignoring that angle entirely. The last mile is still an issue for Bart. I was mostly fine taking Bart as a young male but I don’t think it’s as great for women and I would never take my daughter on it as it stands today.

I also agree on your theory. We should not be making cars worse but the alternative better. That should happen first. We can implement parking maximums but that is not going to fix the roadblocks on getting better public transit.

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#225

Post by no_wizard »

skybrian wrote: post #49
no_wizard wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know I said this in another thread but all zoning reform should really be coupled with a Land Value Tax That would encourage development and encourage making additional reforms to accommodate any unseen / unaddressed issues with the reform

But we just saw that when zoning goes up against financial incentives, zoning wins. Why would more financial incentives help when you can't build anyway? Seems like magical thinking.

It’s the reverse really. Though I didn’t realize prop 13 effectively prohibits a LVT, the way it works in simple broad strokes is that it heavily taxes under utilized land, so holding vacant property or undeveloped land etc. becomes more expensive over time. It incentives utilization and thereby would drive more building faster and increase supply, as the more utilized the land becomes the better off it is for the land owner

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#226

Post by aorloff »

babyshake wrote: post #102
aorloff wrote: post #95

Berkeley is where 1/4 of the elected City Councilmember quit in the last month, one due to harassment and threats (People's Park appearing to be the exacerbating issue) and the other because she is fed up with Berkeley politics, not so much that she isn't still running for mayor, and not because of the protestors who were kinda talking over her big announcement, and also not because of threats like the other guy. We…

Can you speak more to the comedy and jazz in Berkeley and where to find it? Also feel free to suggest any food spots, especially ones that aren't as obvious as Viks, Cheeseboard, Chez Panisse, etc.

Some of the baddest cats out there in 10 years show up here https://www.bhsjazz.org/events

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#227

Post by hacoo »

amluto wrote: post #74

> If a builder chooses to add parking and they’re located 0.5 miles within a transit corridor, they are limited to one space for every two homes. This seems weird. I’m all in favor of getting rid of legislated parking minimums, but it seems to me that, if a developer thinks that adding parking is more economical, they should be allowed to do so.

Probably two reasons for this: 1. Mitigate traffic increases 2. Make anti car zealots happy

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#228

Post by ac29 »

infecto wrote: post #172
iav wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a developer is replacing a 2 story, 20 unit building with 20 parking spots with a new 5 story, 50 unit building, they shouldn’t be able to have more than 25 parking spots, as that is already a net increase from the status quo and will thereby increase traffic and congestion (the street isn’t getting wider…). The logical fallacy here is that it assumes those 25 units without a spot won’t just street park.

Which I would agree with but they Bay Area is in deadlock when it comes to roads and public transportation. You cannot build better roads because cars are bad, so rush hour is just a polluting nightmare. You cannot have better public transportation because there will be at least one person that going to block it for any number of reasons.

The Bay Area has and continues to spend a lot of money on roads and public transportation. You can argue its not enough, but improvements absolutely have been made recently, and a lot more is in progress.

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#229

Post by fasthands9 »

earthwalker99 wrote: post #128
fasthands9 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Local chapters of the Sierra Club still routinely oppose many types of infill housing development. I believe the national org is now YIMBY and most chapters are, but there are certainly many progressive/environmental orgs that have blocked construction for decades. https://sf.curbed.com/2020/2/6/21122825/affordable-housing-h...

Are you trying to make a point? If so, what is it? The Sierra Club are liberal activists with zero historically left wing affiliations or common causes. It's entirely irrelevant as far as I can tell.

I do not like the Sierra Club - but in the political scene it is 100% on the left wing side.

If you are saying it's "not truly left wing" then that scenes like a high bar. Sure, there are plenty of orgs to the left of them, but they seem even more anti new housing.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/01/the-only-thing-worse-...

https://knock-la.com/of-course-republicans-are-yimbys-5a2ef0...

I am optimistic things are shifting. I know DSA members who are YIMBY's, but I don't think historically that's been the case.

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#230

Post by infecto »

ac29 wrote: post #228
infecto wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which I would agree with but they Bay Area is in deadlock when it comes to roads and public transportation. You cannot build better roads because cars are bad, so rush hour is just a polluting nightmare. You cannot have better public transportation because there will be at least one person that going to block it for any number of reasons.

The Bay Area has and continues to spend a lot of money on roads and public transportation. You can argue its not enough, but improvements absolutely have been made recently, and a lot more is in progress.

I am not saying projects have not been completed or that money has not been spent. My view is it is far too difficult in the Bay Area to make significant progress because it’s too easy to derail projects. I look at how many years we keep pushing out the Silicon Valley Bart extension. How long the Richmond district bus lane. There is change happening but it’s far too slow.
Post reply on HN