In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by cesarb » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 6:02 PM UTC

nihonde wrote: post #82

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…

Japan (which is not a perfect analogue) handles several of these issues nicely, IMO. I live in a city of a few million people. Nearly every building is multi-tenant. Even homes are designed with two- or three-generation residents in mind. Large, functional apartment complexes are the norm. Many people live in so-called one-room apartments because they're affordable and available. I'm not familiar with zoning rules he…

Some time ago I found an interesting article about Japan's zoning practices: http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com.br/2014/04/japanese-zoning.h...

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

#132

Post by Tiksi » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 6:03 PM UTC

mountaineer22 wrote: post #30

ec109685 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent poster is not advocating for trespassing and liter.

Nor am I, but what can he do to enforce his rights at that point? My tenants don't car about his property, and now he has to figure out which tenant violated his rights? Yet, all these families now have legal rights and protections to live next door to him. Call the police? Now you are taking a disproportionate amount of taxpayer resources to protect this specific individual's private property rights. What if it keep…

How many people can live in a building generally isn't even regulated by zoning, it's set by building/fire codes and the certificate of occupancy. Removing the zoning isn't suddenly going to change the legal max occupants/residents of the building.

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

#133

Post by jessaustin » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 6:05 PM UTC

shoegumfoot wrote: post #72

extrapickles wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much the only zoning needed is low noise and high noise (airport, late night music venues, etc). All the other things that tag along with zoning are not needed. The only reason for noise zoning is to prevent people from moving next to an existing high noise activity and pushing it out. Zoning laws effectively turn into a tax on new comers to an area as things like "protected views", height restrictions just ad…

Zoning isn't needed just for low and high noise. You also have to consider factors like industrial safety. For example, fertilizer[1] and pesticide[2] plants must be built a certain distance away from populated areas. There are, of course, many other industrial processes that also require a safety perimeter, but those are two that come immediately to mind. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Fertilizer_Company_exp…

Is that the problem these cities have, too many fertilizer plants? It seems unlikely, but I haven't visited the West Coast in a few years. You might have better luck talking about natural gas storage.

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

#134

Post by mc32 » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 6:06 PM UTC

tamana wrote: post #67

mc32 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not because the buyers are Chinese it's mostly due to the volume of purchases affecting the market so directly. They could be "Newfies" if you had as many driving up prices so dramatically, you'd get an outcry. It happens in the US in Portland you'll occasionally see signs about No Californians. It doesn't help that many of those are not "regular" Chinese but people with money and connected, the Chinese .1%ers,…

They aren't buying houses becuase they might need to live in them. They could rent anywhere easily. They are buying them as investments.

The idea of ownership is more important in Chinese culture so renting is not as attractive, plus ownership affords them a place to park their money away from central govt control.

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

#135

Post by cesarb » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 6:06 PM UTC

Tiksi wrote: post #125

shoegumfoot wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zoning isn't needed just for low and high noise. You also have to consider factors like industrial safety. For example, fertilizer[1] and pesticide[2] plants must be built a certain distance away from populated areas. There are, of course, many other industrial processes that also require a safety perimeter, but those are two that come immediately to mind. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Fertilizer_Company_exp…

While I haven't though enough on the issue to have much of an opinion on abolishing zoning completely, zoning seems like the wrong way of dealing with hazardous companies like that regardless. There is already an extensive permitting process and a mountain of regulation that you'd have to go through to open one of these companies, so why not enforce the safety perimeter through that? It makes more sense to me to plac…

That would prevent a hazardous factory from being built next to residences, but wouldn't prevent residences being built nearby after the factory is already there. For that, you'd need restrictions on the residences and/or the land.

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

#136

Post by specialist » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 6:07 PM UTC

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…

I say this as a liberal: Building limits are systemically classist and racist.

Where we may differ is enthusiasm for (de)regulation. Your rights end where my begin. I still don't want my neighbor's bad choices impacting my property's value, my personal safety. Or creating externalities which then must be covered by tax payers. Buildings must still be made to code, lest everything catches on fire. Runoff must be still be mitigated, so the hillside doesn't collapse or my basement gets flooded with sewage.

Where "liberals" need better messaging is showing that protecting the environment and public health can be better for the economy. Stuff like protecting wetlands to minimize flooding, reducing runoff to protect waterways from pollutants and fecal matter, etc.

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

#137

Post by BurningFrog » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 6:10 PM UTC

joe_the_user wrote: post #73

ktRolster wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The NYTimes had an article on an absolutely unregulated city in India. Sewage bumped in vacant lots is a problem. Safety outside developed areas is a problem. Still, removing parking requirements might be a good thing if creates incentive for public transit. Removing single family home mandates seems like it would be great for avoiding sprawl. But as you say, just these two. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/world/as…

There are a zillion other things separating India from California.

Compare SF to unzoned Houston instead.

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

#138

Post by skewart » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 6:13 PM UTC

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.

Building inspections are to enforce building codes, not zoning. Building inspections and building codes are a very good thing. I don't think anyone in these comments is saying otherwise.

Zoning and building codes are two vastly different things. Zoning controls how buildings can be used, what types of new buildings can be built, and, in some cases buildings' overall shape and size. Building codes specify how buildings can be built, and what quality and safety standards the construction has to meet.

Like many other pro-housing-affordablity people, I believe we should massively relax zoning laws in most places (though not necessarily abolish them entirely). I do not think we should change building codes in any way.

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

#139

Post by Tiksi » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 6:14 PM UTC

cesarb wrote: post #135

Tiksi wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I haven't though enough on the issue to have much of an opinion on abolishing zoning completely, zoning seems like the wrong way of dealing with hazardous companies like that regardless. There is already an extensive permitting process and a mountain of regulation that you'd have to go through to open one of these companies, so why not enforce the safety perimeter through that? It makes more sense to me to plac…

That would prevent a hazardous factory from being built next to residences, but wouldn't prevent residences being built nearby after the factory is already there. For that, you'd need restrictions on the residences and/or the land.

Maybe a hybrid solution would work? Have a zone tied to the factory, no residential buildings within a certain radius of the factory, but if the factory shuts down or moves, the zone goes with it.

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

#140

Post by rconti » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 6:14 PM UTC

The Times selected as an "NYTimes Pick" a comment from someone in Berlin who absolutely makes my blood boil.

(S)he starts off by stating privilege as a 5th-generation San Franciscan (obviously, the kind who DESERVE to live in the city), and who fled in the tech boom of the 90s. The usual rant about whitewashing and yuppies and artists being pushed out ensues. Of course they don't want more housing built, because then dirty artists from other places would move in -- you need to preserve the history of San Francisco's starving artists, and never let new culture of any kind in.

Except (s)he says, okay, maybe some "affordable" housing should be built. No discussion on the endless problems of how to manage the waiting list for this "bucket" of housing, or what happens when those people become too successful.

And, in the end, (s)he has moved to Berlin, a city almost TWICE as dense as San Francisco. No doubt some NIMBY in Berlin at some point whined about building more housing for these "outsiders", but I'm sure (s)he does not have the critical thinking necessary to recognize that such a special flower could be the same force in Berlin that (s)he whines about happening to San Francisco.