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

In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 380 posts

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#111

Post by lukasm »

ktRolster wrote: post #37
hodwik wrote: post #2

I say this as a conservative: Building limits are systemically classist and racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system. If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. Remove occupancy laws where they're not about safety. Remove property line setbacks. End parking requirements. End requirements about private kitchens and bath…

If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. That's a bad idea, too. For example, in Fremont right now, there's a development that was built without being placed in a school district. So the students who will live there have no real school. Also, there are serious environmental impacts that need to be considered every time you build a…

"school district" - this is exactly what OP is suggesting. Another obstacle with classist and racist origin. It really blows my mind why some countries have such incredibly stupid laws. Can you image a law when you can buy only in one shop if you are from a certain district? That would suck tremendously. No competition.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#112

Post by swiley »

joe_the_user wrote: post #86
icebraining wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For example, in Fremont right now, there's a development that was built without being placed in a school district. So the students who will live there have no real school. Why would people with children move to a place without schools?

People with children move into places without schools because they're short-sighted or because other priorities are higher for them. Some portion of people with children may not care at all about them. That's one reason why there's public education, to prevent parent's lack of concern being something that cause a child to have nearly no future. Of course, such considerations seem to be already going away, so sure we'…

Homeschooling is underrated honestly.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#113

Post by [deleted] »

ktRolster wrote: post #105
skewart wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making a massive leap from legalizing more different kinds of development in the US to a totally unregulated city in India. It's basically a strawman fallacy. The article clearly talks about a lack of many basic government authority and services way beyond zoning codes, like electricity and criminal justice. I think the lack of reliable power and sweage treatment might have a lot more to do with it being chaot…

If you think builders won't screw home-purchasers every chance they get, then you don't know many home builders. There's a reason we have housing inspections at so many steps in the building process.

[deleted]

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#114

Post by vasilipupkin »

wmccullough wrote: post #20
vasilipupkin wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are permitting processes for a reason. So that we do not have an epidemic of shoddily built houses that fall down or burn down, etc. or, don't end up with a nuclear power plant in the middle of a quite residential street. Granted, some limits are too restrictive and should be removed and/or relaxed. Others should be kept and/or enhanced. Blanket removal of all limits is just as stupid as limits that are too res…

Removing zoning permits does not equate to shoddily built houses. This is what you call, a straw man.

Did you see the or in my argument ? Zoning is what prevents someone building a nuclear waste plant ( or an industrial plant ) on a quiet, tree lined street.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#115

Post by jessaustin »

ktRolster wrote: post #101
revelation wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does that mean, "without being placed in a school district"? Is the next school 20+ miles away?

It might be 20+ miles away, or your kids might go to different schools: http://abc7news.com/education/developer-suing-fremont-unifie... The school district has designated this new area as unassigned, meaning the children will have a seat somewhere, but no guarantee of a close neighborhood school.

So there is a school district, and what you wrote first was mere hyperbole?

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#116

Post by skewart »

hodwik wrote: post #2

I say this as a conservative: Building limits are systemically classist and racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system. If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. Remove occupancy laws where they're not about safety. Remove property line setbacks. End parking requirements. End requirements about private kitchens and bath…

> Building limits are systemically classist and racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system.

This. Outlawing dense, urban growth does real harm to people's lives, and to the environment. It's one of the clearest examples of xenophobia and greed coallescing to extract wealth and concentrate it in the hands of the privileged few. Just because it's, say, a crowd of mostly Bernie Sanders supporters pushing to "preserve neighborhood character" in the Berkeley hills at a local city council meeting, and not a skyscraper board room full of bankers in expensive suits, doesn't make it any less nefarious or the impact any less real.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#117

Post by llamataboot »

varelse wrote: post #45
llamataboot wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably though, people are implicitly willing to pay quite the premium for racial and class segregation. Why would a purely 'free market' approach (hard when there are so many externalities involved) work better than an inclusionary zoning approach? (rather than the exclusionary zoning regimes of, for example, most suburbs in he US) - Encourage/demand high-density infill mixed-income housing.

One problem is that one need not be particularly racist for segregation to occur spontaneously: http://nifty.stanford.edu/2014/mccown-schelling-model-segreg...

Just because something could exist, doesn't mean it is what is happening though. I think all complex systems modeling has things to teach us, and I've looked a lot at Schelling and other agent-based models, but arguably they don't hold up to empirical evidence. http://www.nyudri.org/research-index/2009/empirics

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#118

Post by jeffdavis »

raldi wrote: post #40
hodwik wrote: post #2

I say this as a conservative: Building limits are systemically classist and racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system. If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. Remove occupancy laws where they're not about safety. Remove property line setbacks. End parking requirements. End requirements about private kitchens and bath…

We don't have to remove all limits; we can get a ton of benefit just by adjusting the stupid ones. For example, the ones that require seas of single-family houses around most of San Francisco's major transit hubs: https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/3qu9uv/i_made...

And also height restrictions to protect views. You could still ask for nice architecture so views are pleasant.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#119

Post by vasilipupkin »

gedy wrote: post #21
vasilipupkin wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are permitting processes for a reason. So that we do not have an epidemic of shoddily built houses that fall down or burn down, etc. or, don't end up with a nuclear power plant in the middle of a quite residential street. Granted, some limits are too restrictive and should be removed and/or relaxed. Others should be kept and/or enhanced. Blanket removal of all limits is just as stupid as limits that are too res…

Zoning is not the same as permitting - you can remove zoning restrictions without removing safety inspections, etc.

As I said, some zoning restrictions and/or permitting procedures in some places are too restrictive and should be relaxed. That in no way implies that it's a good idea to get rid of all zoning restrictions

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#120

Post by jessaustin »

ktRolster wrote: post #105
skewart wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making a massive leap from legalizing more different kinds of development in the US to a totally unregulated city in India. It's basically a strawman fallacy. The article clearly talks about a lack of many basic government authority and services way beyond zoning codes, like electricity and criminal justice. I think the lack of reliable power and sweage treatment might have a lot more to do with it being chaot…

If you think builders won't screw home-purchasers every chance they get, then you don't know many home builders. There's a reason we have housing inspections at so many steps in the building process.

Actually, there are many reasons, some of which are good for home-purchasers. It might interest you to know that the inspection regimes of different municipalities vary drastically.
Post reply on HN