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

Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79

mnolangray.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 140 posts

Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79

#111

Post by HDThoreaun »

cyberax wrote: post #106
yongjik wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are not entitled to have a town with no bus service within a humanly drivable distance from you decent job, to which you aren't entitled either. Those who blame others of collectivism have the weirdest sense of entitlements...

The thing is, you are also not entitled to "affordble housing". Or to any housing, for that matter. You can keep trying to make everyone's life worse by making dense city living inevitable, but it will just make _everyone's_ life worse (very much including yours). Or you can try to advocate for ways to _improve_ the life of everyone.

I am entitled to build housing on land I own. You are not entitled to say I cant.

Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79

#113

Post by brokencode »

cyberax wrote: post #104
brokencode wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically you want to reap all the benefits from living in a big city without any of the downsides. California has been trying this for decades and it really isn’t working out, except maybe for people with very high salaries. Increasing density is the only realistic way to address housing affordability.

> So basically you want to reap all the benefits from living in a big city without any of the downsides. Yes? Why is that bad? And I want everyone to be able to do the same, and not get crammed into microapartments. > Increasing density is the only realistic way to address housing affordability. No single large Western European or American city lowered housing costs by increasing density within the last 30 years. You…

Can you list some examples where a city has tried this and it failed?

The only example I can think of is Minneapolis, and they have seen lower rent increases than similar cities, so it seems successful.

But outside of that, I just don’t think it’s been tried enough to really make any conclusions right now.

Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79

#114

Post by Supermancho »

epistasis wrote: post #89
Supermancho wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While brake dust is a major contributor to this, a suburb next to a freeway is going to be pretty damn bad too. Relative to the rest of the area, for that specific pollutant, yes. Relative to a city dwelling of the same distance, no. Volume (ie Traffic) matters when comparing health impacts.

Freeway traffic next to suburbs is really the major driver here, with high speeds and tire microplastics (the biggest source of microplastics in the SF Bay Area is tires). A suburbanite driving on their river of pollution for 50 miles every day is a much bigger impact than somebody taking the bus and train in the city. And even city streets do not see the level of pollution caused by freeways that snake through subur…

>> > While brake dust is a major contributor to this, a suburb next to a freeway is going to be pretty damn bad too.

> A suburbanite driving on their river of pollution for 50 miles every day is a much bigger impact than somebody taking the bus and train in the city.

This is moving the goalpost. Now it's distance plus traffic to reach for a pre-decided conclusion.

> As far as health metrics, whether from environmental effects or crime or the actual real killers: obesity, smoking, blood pressure, and heat disease, cities do better than rural areas:

Rural is not the same as suburb and not rural. A suburb is generally still a city, albeit smaller...depending on how one wants to define "city", I guess.

I have health conditions, originating from congenital defect. I have an electric stove. I moved out of a SoCal city, as I was raised next to a major (5) interchange. I live in the largest city of my state, which would be called a suburb somewhere else and my medical care is EXCELLENT for reasons that are particular to my area.

There's an argument to be made that cars provide economic and financial mobility, leveraged by the upper classes, which is why cars are not properly demonized. That's a separate topic from health.

I hope this helps you make stronger arguments in your next exchange, because I share some of these views as well.

Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79

#115

Post by Eridrus »

troad wrote: post #16

I'm not intimately familiar with Californian zoning, but I have to say, all this talk of the 'seventh Regional Housing Needs Assessment cycle' reminded me of the Five Year Plans used in socialist countries. I wish the people of California the best of luck exceeding dwelling quotas in the upcoming seventh cycle! :P Edit: I forgot how sensitive people can be to the word 'socialism'. I am not trying imply - with all the…

Despite people mocking the parallel, I think it's actually pretty apt. RHNA is basically a socialist planning exercise because people were unwilling to stomach a market economy for housing construction and demanded state control through zoning.

It's better than the alternative of letting local governments do what they want, but it very much is a socialist planning exercise.

Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79

#116

Post by hamdingers »

doctorpangloss wrote: post #94
hamdingers wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Prop 13 sort of being phased out naturally I'm not sure how you're coming to this conclusion. When the property is transferred it is reassessed and the new buyer pays the full tax, but after that the taxes effectively decrease annually (increase at a rate lower than inflation). Everyone who owns a property more than a year or two in California benefits from Prop 13. Nothing is phasing out and it has no sunset claus…

Okay… even if things worked exactly as you say. Is the repeal going to fix education? Is it going to result in home prices going down or up? Will the change in home prices that you predict cause more or fewer homes to be built? I hate Prop 13 but I hate it for reasons of justice and equity, not because I think it will have effects that it will not.

What do you mean "if" ? Do the reading before trying to have this conversation.

Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79

#117

Post by SilverElfin »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #109
SilverElfin wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those aren’t the only choices. It’s okay to have urban areas that are low density but not quite as low as rural. This prop overrides that choice.

No its doesnt. If you want a suburban sfh lifestyle you just need to buy in an area more than half a mile from public transit.

You can have both SFH and public transit. Again, you’re reducing choice on the quality of life people want locally.

Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79

#118

Post by SilverElfin »

cyberax wrote: post #105
dcrazy wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s an extremely poor proxy given that income tax is not the sole source of revenue in California, you’re not netting out state spend (which would be very important to the definition of subdsidy), and you don’t even specify whether you are speaking in aggregate or per capita.

No. It's the best proxy to determine who's sponsoring whom. Corporate taxes are not a good proxy because they are imposed at the location of corporate headquarters. Which are almost always in the Downtowns even if the workers who produce all the value live in suburbs. Ditto for sales taxes.

I would also add: The people leading and owning businesses are largely higher income and older. They tend to want to get away from urban hell and live in suburbs. If anything it’s the people of the suburbs who subsidize the cities.

Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79

#119

Post by s1artibartfast »

epistasis wrote: post #42
zdragnar wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't there a lot of people in the Palisades still waiting for permits to rebuild from the fires almost a year ago? It's utterly absurd looking from the outside that officials are claiming the permits are being "fast tracked" even now.

The 2020 CZU Lightning Complex Fires destroyed thousands of homes in the Santa Cruz mountains, a "wilderness" area that has been filled with mountain homes Many (most) have not yet had permits issued for rebuilding, most commonly because the owners can not meet, or are unwilling to meet, the standards for septic systems. There have been decades of higher standards for all sorts of code. Nothing nearly as stringent fo…

And the state and country are happy to leave them hanging indefinitely. property seizure via regulation.

Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79

#120

Post by bigyabai »

SilverElfin wrote: post #100
yongjik wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That could happen. But on the other hand, all those new housing will create more people living around stations, providing more ridership and more revenue for public transportation, and hopefully more stations along the way. Also, these new people would vote. The old NIMBYs are already opposing everything; how harder can they go? The demographic change might be enough to change local politics in some places.

Sounds a lot like replacement theory. New people come in, replace and marginalize the existing ones, who will be left with a changed neighborhood and no voice?

The term you are looking for is "gentrification", not "replacement theory" lmfao.
Post reply on HN