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

Bay Area homeowner is the face of California’s latest housing drama

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 228 posts

Re: Bay Area homeowner is the face of California’s latest housing drama

#101

Post by beebmam »

astrange wrote: post #58
occz wrote: post #3

Zoning laws broadly are probably still in effect, right? I doubt you could build something industrial in residential zones. It's just the bad parts of zoning that are disabled, if I understood the article correctly. Excellent development in any case. Hope a lot of good dense housing gets built.

Residential-only zoning is "the bad kind of zoning". It wasn't invented to keep factories away from homes; it was /literally/ invented in Berkeley to stop Chinese immigrants from being able to afford homes by running laundry businesses out of them.

Correct me if I'm misrepresenting you here, but are you claiming that the reason that something is invented is always the reason why it continues to be used?

Re: Bay Area homeowner is the face of California’s latest housing drama

#102

Post by avidiax »

MarkMarine wrote: post #86
GalenErso wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> until these cities get a housing plan validated with the state I could see the cities just refusing to submit any plans at all. The state should then make its own housing plans with the developers directly. Cities should be cut out of the loop.

They seem to be trying any trick they can think of to avoid submitting a valid plan: https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/bay-area-towns-mull-pla...

I don't know if Mr. Bean would be considered developmentally disabled, but I can't get the image of him being driven around while flipping off all the affluent people that support this out of my mind :)

Re: Bay Area homeowner is the face of California’s latest housing drama

#103

Post by nemo44x »

eric-hu wrote: post #63
astrange wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Residential-only zoning is "the bad kind of zoning". It wasn't invented to keep factories away from homes; it was /literally/ invented in Berkeley to stop Chinese immigrants from being able to afford homes by running laundry businesses out of them.

I did a search to check the history of this claim, but maybe I wasn’t searching for the right thing. Would you mind sharing a link?

No it’s just completely untrue. This is a common tactic today to say something was created for purposes so the entire concept is bad naturally.

See how activists say policing was invented to catch slaves or some ridiculous claim. There’s a bunch of others.

Re: Bay Area homeowner is the face of California’s latest housing drama

#104

Post by encoderer »

davidw wrote: post #90
encoderer wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppose you buy every hotel in the sfba and move in every homeless person, totally clearing the streets. What happens next? Just no more homeless? No, more homeless will appear. They will fill the same corners and tents that you just cleared the month before. This is not a solution. This is a grift.

> No, more homeless will appear It's not like they magically respawn or something. There are people who have studied the root cause of homelessness, and: it's housing. Sure, other factors make things worse, but there's more homelessness where housing is expensive. Which stands to reason: when a thing is expensive, fewer people can afford it. https://homelessnesshousingproblem.com/ That's why, ultimately, the biggest…

They really do re-spawn if being homeless now means being given a nice, new, clean place to live. Why wouldn’t they?

Re: Bay Area homeowner is the face of California’s latest housing drama

#105

Post by [deleted] »

davidw wrote: post #37
encoderer wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Once someone has a home, they're no longer homeless, so it's a good strategy in some circumstances. Even where that person has other 'issues', it's a lot easier to deal with those once they're in a stable location. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/14/headway/houston-homeless-... https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/01/homeles...

[deleted]

Re: Bay Area homeowner is the face of California’s latest housing drama

#106

Post by throw009 »

astrange wrote: post #58
occz wrote: post #3

Zoning laws broadly are probably still in effect, right? I doubt you could build something industrial in residential zones. It's just the bad parts of zoning that are disabled, if I understood the article correctly. Excellent development in any case. Hope a lot of good dense housing gets built.

Residential-only zoning is "the bad kind of zoning". It wasn't invented to keep factories away from homes; it was /literally/ invented in Berkeley to stop Chinese immigrants from being able to afford homes by running laundry businesses out of them.

[flagged]

Re: Bay Area homeowner is the face of California’s latest housing drama

#107

Post by Larrikin »

encoderer wrote: post #104
davidw wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, more homeless will appear It's not like they magically respawn or something. There are people who have studied the root cause of homelessness, and: it's housing. Sure, other factors make things worse, but there's more homelessness where housing is expensive. Which stands to reason: when a thing is expensive, fewer people can afford it. https://homelessnesshousingproblem.com/ That's why, ultimately, the biggest…

They really do re-spawn if being homeless now means being given a nice, new, clean place to live. Why wouldn’t they?

Do you really think people with housing would become homeless in hopes of getting a new place?

Re: Bay Area homeowner is the face of California’s latest housing drama

#108

Post by lapetitejort »

encoderer wrote: post #87
mikestew wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other than calling "nonsense", you haven't really made the case against for something that has precedent. Care to take another whack at it?

$550,000 a unit. Come on. You can’t be serious that this is a solution. https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle-business-health-califor...

> CEO John Maceri said the state has set up local governments for success, but it will take a combined effort of politicians and service providers to sustain the program. He estimates conversion costs will be far less than $550,000 per unit, the going rate for building from the ground up.

I assume this is where you got your number? Why skip the "far less" part?

Re: Bay Area homeowner is the face of California’s latest housing drama

#109

Post by wnissen »

eric-hu wrote: post #63
astrange wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Residential-only zoning is "the bad kind of zoning". It wasn't invented to keep factories away from homes; it was /literally/ invented in Berkeley to stop Chinese immigrants from being able to afford homes by running laundry businesses out of them.

I did a search to check the history of this claim, but maybe I wasn’t searching for the right thing. Would you mind sharing a link?

If you have an interest, the most comprehensive book I'm aware of is "Zoned in the USA: The Origins and Implications of American Land-Use Regulation" by Sonia Hirt. Cornell University Press. 2014. ISBN 978-0-8014-5305-2.

She's the one quoted in the LA Times article: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-01-19/single-fam...

Full disclosure, I was so impressed with Prof. Hirt's book that I wrote her Wikipedia page.

Re: Bay Area homeowner is the face of California’s latest housing drama

#110

Post by twblalock »

occz wrote: post #3

Zoning laws broadly are probably still in effect, right? I doubt you could build something industrial in residential zones. It's just the bad parts of zoning that are disabled, if I understood the article correctly. Excellent development in any case. Hope a lot of good dense housing gets built.

Most of the existing lots aren't big enough for large developments. It's probably going to be more of what we have -- relatively low-rise apartment complexes and townhouses, with carport parking or garages underneath.

I'd also expect more people who have space for ADUs to build them, although many of the lots aren't the right size or shape to fit one.

The really big, dense housing projects are being built on commercial land -- stuff like what is being built in downtown Sunnyvale, Santa Clara Square, Lawrence Station, and the proposed replacement of Cambrian Plaza.

Notably, all that big stuff is either already finished, or in the process of building, and didn't need the builder's remedy to get done.

Post reply on HN