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

121–130 of 140 posts

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

#121

Post by epistasis »

Supermancho wrote: post #114
epistasis wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 environmenta…

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

What goalpost was moved? The freeway is the major producer of pollution, the major concentration of it. This is well documented in the literature on PM2.5: being close to a freeway is a major risk factor but urban areas are not a major risk factor.

If there's a freeway, it's not an urban area, it's a suburban area.

> I hope this helps you make stronger arguments in your next exchange,

I have no idea how you think you poked any holes at all in my argument, but this statement clearly thinks you have! Could you clarify what you think I said was wrong and how?

Living next to a major interchange is definitely living a huuuuge health risk, but again it's mostly a suburban risk.

> 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.

If there's an argument, it's very weak. Cars are very expensive, draining the bank accounts of those on the lower end of the economic scale. Yet because we have capped density, those same people on the lower end of the economic scale must travel long distances from farther away, instead of being allowed a place in a city. Density plus transit offer a cheaper alternative without the burden of large car payments, the huge repair bills of cheap used cars, the monthly car insurance payments, and the debt trap of having to buy a car to even get a job.

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

#122

Post by cyberax »

brokencode wrote: post #113
cyberax wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

Moscow, Tokyo, Minneapolis, Seattle.

Moscow is the one most familiar to me personally. They went full-in on density, demolishing 5-story buildings and putting in 20-story towers instead with the speed only possible in a corruption-filled society. You can guess what happened with housing costs.

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

If I remove the labels from these graphs, would you be able to tell which one of them is MN and which one is WI: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1N1sc ?

Rents are not a useful indicator short-term, they can be strongly affected by various transitionary events and the rent datasets are notoriously unreliable. But even then, the rent in MN is not affected that much: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=1N1sB&heig...

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

It's been tried. With the expected results: more misery and higher housing costs. There are all these hilarious articles as a result: https://archive.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/4/26/upzoning-m...

Or Tokyo, it always cracks me up.

2016 - "Tokyo may have found the solution to soaring housing costs": https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=1N1sB&heig...

2024 - "Whoops, nope. It's in an even worse bubble": https://www.ft.com/content/40ce3cdc-5bc3-486f-b9e9-700af1087...

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

#123

Post by cyberax »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #111
cyberax wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure. As long as you teleport from your house and not abuse the roads that I'm paying for. And also teleport the sewage and water, btw.

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

#124

Post by epistasis »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #119
epistasis wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As somebody who would like to swim in the San Lorenzo River with my children, I'm not super enthusiastic about allowing them to continue to pollute the river.

It may be that the septic regulations are excessive, but oddly I've never heard anybody argue that the regulations are unnecessary, they just argue that they don't want to follow them because they didn't have to in the past. I'd be a bit more sympathetic to the mountain folks if they had an argument that the regulations were incorrect.

The real property seizure is what's happening to the public land so that people can live for cheap and not cover their own pollution. People still have the land. Though if they want to try to overturn Euclid v. Amber and make zoning illegal, I'm there to help them! Necessary environmental regulations are not something I want to overturn, however.

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

#125

Post by s1artibartfast »

epistasis wrote: post #124
s1artibartfast wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

As somebody who would like to swim in the San Lorenzo River with my children, I'm not super enthusiastic about allowing them to continue to pollute the river. It may be that the septic regulations are excessive, but oddly I've never heard anybody argue that the regulations are unnecessary , they just argue that they don't want to follow them because they didn't have to in the past. I'd be a bit more sympathetic to th…

That is indeed the conflict. IDK if the regulations are unnecessary to maintain a swimmable river either.

however, it is undeniable that there was a change in regulation and restriction, even if that is going from a river quality is optional to the priority.

Beneficiaries are happy to benefit, and if that takes away powers and property from others, so be it.

This is the dynamic that I am highlighting.

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

#126

Post by jeffbee »

mothballed wrote: post #57
jeffbee wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Read it: As used in Section 33700, “firearm barrel” means the tube, usually metal and cylindrical, through which a projectile or shot charge is fired. A firearm barrel includes any forging, casting, printing, extrusion, machined body, or similar article that has reached a stage in manufacture where it may readily be completed, assembled, or converted to be used as a firearm barrel, or that is marketed or sold to the…

The difference between your interpretation and mine is that I studied the law and I know how to read it, while you don't and spend all your time on 2A forums.

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

#127

Post by yongjik »

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?

When California lets NIMBYs ruin the housing market, conservatives hold it up as an example of how liberals are ruining the state.

When California for once does the right thing and stands up to NIMBYs, conservatives hold it up as an example of how liberals are ruining the state.

Why am I not surprised.

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

#128

Post by HDThoreaun »

SilverElfin wrote: post #117
HDThoreaun wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can also buy a sfh near public transit. You are the one who wants top reduce choices, no one is trying to take away the option to live in a sfh, you are trying to take away the option to live in multi family homes.

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

#129

Post by brokencode »

cyberax wrote: post #122
brokencode wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Can you list some examples where a city has tried this and it failed? Moscow, Tokyo, Minneapolis, Seattle. Moscow is the one most familiar to me personally. They went full-in on density, demolishing 5-story buildings and putting in 20-story towers instead with the speed only possible in a corruption-filled society. You can guess what happened with housing costs. > The only example I can think of is Minneapolis, and…

You raise reasonable points. It seems like a common trend is that housing prices go up anyway due to outside investors buying up property, high income workers moving in and wanting luxury apartments, etc.

Seems like we need to solve the demand part of the puzzle as well. There’s definitely no single easy solution here.

It could also be that too few cities have increased housing supply, so the local effect is totally overwhelmed by a national or global effect.

Either way, the bill is going forward, so we will be able to see the effects and reevaluate its effectiveness.

I don’t think the idea of “just let the population go down” is a reasonable approach. Especially since it will be poorer people pushed out, even lifelong residents who are displaced by highly paid newcomers.

It’s better to try something new and find out you were wrong than to never even try to solve the problem.

Post reply on HN