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

121–130 of 1001 posts

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

#121

Post by uoaei »

PuppyTailWags wrote: post #77
dahfizz wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people just want to live in a small suburb

I get some people want to live in a small suburb. Small suburbs are often quiet and peaceful. But small suburbs are also inefficient, environmentally unfriendly, and expensive to support so much road/electricity/water/etc infrastructure for so few people. Especially if the voting base of the suburb is effectively strangling their children by ensuring their kids will never be able to themselves afford a life there. It…

If we taxed suburbs by how much they actually drain city budgets, no one would want to live in suburbs. It is by now a well-studied fact that suburbs are effectively subsidized by metropolitan cores. Makers and takers, indeed...

Here's a video about some of the studies done to come to this conclusion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI

The folks at Strong Towns also talk a lot about productive land use measured as property tax income per square foot. They say it is the gold standard way to make sure your budget remains solvent and you can provide the services people need to make your city thrive. Obviously this means building up.

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

#122

Post by ketzo »

fishtoaster wrote: post #49

The part that I'm sure many here are skimming for: > HCD reviewed SF’s housing element and said it “largely compiled” with the state’s rules, even though it was heavy on promises. As such, SF will not be subjected to the builder remedy on Wednesday. (But it's an interesting piece in general and you should read the whole thing for important context!)

The whole "heavy on promises" thing makes me nervous. But the HCD has been super intensely focused on San Francisco in particular -- the article mentions the special investigation they opened into the city's Board of Supervisors -- and so I'm hoping that if they think it's good, then it's actually good.

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

#123

Post by danans »

For all of California's huge dysfunctions (which are frequently the side-effects of its huge successes), this is a good example of what the state gets right.

To people who are freaked out that this is going to turn into the opening scenes from Pixar's "Up", more often than not, in suburban areas, this will just result in a few dwellings per lot, imagine 2-3 town homes on what is now a .25 acre single family lot.

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

#124

Post by dsfyu404ed »

jimbob45 wrote: post #84
thepasswordis wrote: post #5

Wow that's great news! The level of bureaucratic creep that has been imposed on property owners is actually unbelievable to me. I obviously understand some regulations (you can't built a chemical processing plant in a residential neighborhood, obviously), but cities have creeped themselves into all-powerful overseers. Most cities now have the power to tell you what kind of house you can build, how you can paint it, h…

Most cities now have the power to tell you what kind of house you can build, how you can paint it, how you can landscape it, what kinds of cars you can keep in your own driveway, what you can do in your leisure time on the property etc. In my experience, the city regulations around what you’ve listed are always sensible. It’s the HOA regulations that tend to be kooky and capricious.

Pretty much any city that was rich in at any point in the latter half of the 20th century has a ton of regulations that boil down to "if you couldn't get away with it in a gated community you can't get away with it here." No one regulation is onerous on its face but the sum total of them are damn near impossible to comply with unless being a high class homeowner is your hobby so this just results in discretionary enforcement which is complaint driven. And of course because the .gov doesn't want their snitches getting stitches they won't tell you who complained so you can't even go attempt to work things out with your neighbors. Karen complains about your shed and you're getting fined $50/day until you tear the thing down not knowing that she'd have been fine if you just painted it.

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

#125

Post by blockinator »

nine_k wrote: post #71
mschuster91 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how you can landscape it, what kinds of cars you can keep in your own driveway These two at least make some sense. The former, landscaping restrictions, can be used to prevent people from creating groundwater issues or flood risks, and the latter... no one wants a neighbor in a residential zone keeping broken-down trash cars out in the open. Some things have to be regulated even in a relatively free society because…

How would a broken-down car on a driveway ruin everyone else's life? Even so, today's trash car that does not look posh can be a tomorrow's restored historical car that does.

They can potentially become a blight. I'm not talking about a single classic car you're restoring, I'm talking about 3+ vehicles, some parked on driveway, others on the grass. They're homes for vermin and other animals, they're a disaster aesthetically and probably dangerous to kids in the neighborhood (sometimes they're on jack stands). They're often accompanied by stacks of tires and other debris.

I've lived off-grid in the desert, and I've seen certain people become 'garbage collectors' - a few cars turns into 20+, with all the associated junk. In the desert, nobody really cares - but you'd be crazy to move in next to one of those junk yards.

It's not going to ruin anyone's life, but it's definitely not nice. It depends on the community and circumstances I suppose.

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

#126

Post by jeffbee »

nlavezzo wrote: post #95
thepasswordis wrote: post #5

Wow that's great news! The level of bureaucratic creep that has been imposed on property owners is actually unbelievable to me. I obviously understand some regulations (you can't built a chemical processing plant in a residential neighborhood, obviously), but cities have creeped themselves into all-powerful overseers. Most cities now have the power to tell you what kind of house you can build, how you can paint it, h…

> 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…

Where this breaks down is cities that do not even have space for their own offspring. Again sticking with my own city of Berkeley, demographic processes, birth rate combined with increasing longevity, means that Berkeley has been exporting young people for 50 years, causing housing crises in those places, too. In what way is that equitable to either the offspring in question or the people who already lived in the other places?

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

#127

Post by jedberg »

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.

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

#128

Post by fragmede »

whimsicalism wrote: post #65
kqr2 wrote: post #48

How would the builder's remedy work in a place like Atherton if the homeowners form a pact and refuse to sell to any developers? E.g. if Marc Andreessen ( https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/marc-andre... ) and Steph Curry ( https://therealdeal.com/2023/01/29/steph-curry-shoots-his-ni... ) form a coalition with other residents then they can effectively keep the city down zoned even if builder's remedy i…

I am excited to see how well a coalition of rich people performs once they start getting massive bids.

Especially when they fight with each other, as neighbors do. The wealthy aren't always a monolithic block of undifferentiated piles of money so, not that I know what the future holds, but imagine you've been squabbling with your neighbor for decades; you've always wanted to move back east. What better giant finger to that neighbor than selling your multi-acre estate to be replaced by a 30 or 100-unit apartment complex?

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

#130

Post by dragonwriter »

arrosenberg wrote: post #64
DoneWithAllThat wrote: post #37

So when and if this takes effect, what do self proclaimed YIMBYs think is going to happen to everything in these cities that aren’t housing? Schools, roads, grocery stores, public transit, parks, etc. Is the thinking that they’re just going to magically be expanded to meet the massively higher density than these areas were ever planned to built for?

The cities will have increased property taxes (at full rate, not 1978 rates) which they can use to expand services. It'll take a few years of pain, but that's the price cities like Santa Monica get to pay for trying to avoid doing their fair share.

> The cities will have increased property taxes (at full rate, not 1978 rates) which they can use to expand services.

No, the maximum property tax rate is much less than the 1978 rates under Prop 13 rate caps, which is the reason Prop 13 led to local government being dependent on state funding transfers.

You mean taxed based in full value for the first year, then decaying (as a share of full value) thereafter, because of the Prop 13 assessment increase limit to the lower of 2% or the rate of inflation. But maintenance cost increases over time aren't capped the way prooertt taxes are, even if property taxes were adequate to initially maintain infrastructure.

Post reply on HN