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

131–140 of 1001 posts

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

#131

Post by qwerpy »

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…

As a suburban homeowner/parent, house prices have little bearing for me. I hope to live in my house for decades, so the sell price in the distant future doesn’t matter. It’s the “quiet and peaceful” part that I care about. West coast cities have repeatedly demonstrated that they are unwilling or unable to prevent crime and keep things clean, so I will continue fighting to my last breath to prevent my suburb from becoming like that.

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

#132

Post by dahfizz »

GalenErso wrote: post #80
dahfizz wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people just want to live in a small suburb

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Why? It works pretty much everywhere in America except CA.

61% of Americans live in a town of less than 50,000 people.[1]

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/05/america-a-nat...

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

#133

Post by LewisVerstappen »

piperswe wrote: post #63
LewisVerstappen wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Something tells me everyone who's homeless isn't a fentanyl addict. Especially given housing costs SF/LA has numerous programs that will give you housing if you're homeless. The issue is that many of the homeless refuse to take up these programs and insist on staying in their tents.... because they're mentally ill.... because of drugs.

Okay, correct me if I'm wrong: - They're homeless - Because they're mentally ill - Because they're on drugs - Because they're mentally ill - Because they're homeless

To be clear, I'm not suggesting a drug problem is a character defect nor am I implying that these people don't deserve a huge amount of empathy.

I'm just unsure if the root cause is the price of housing (despite there meaning numerous problems to house & relocate them) or if it's due to the drug addiction.

Anyway, obviously I'm for more housing to reduce the price of rent.

There's a youtube channel called Invisible People that interviews homeless people on the streets and the story is very frequently

had job -> got on highly addictive drugs -> everything is about getting another hit -> tried rehab multiple times and want to go to rehab again

And yeah I mean, heroine/meth/whatever is obviously super dangerous & addictive so you can't really blame them.

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

#134

Post by epistasis »

whimsicalism wrote: post #94
m00x wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Homelessness is mostly due to lack of housing, and fentanyl crisis mostly due to addiction. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2356643-we-can-reduce-h...

Stats like these are only true because the general public and policymakers/NGOs mean completely different populations of people when discussing "the homeless." Private market housing in SF will not get most of the very visible & mentally ill off of the streets, this likely requires services and some level of compulsion.

If you redefine "homelessness" to only include those with addiction or mental illness problems, then you might have a point. But that's not a terrible useful definition, and many of those addiction and mental illness problems stem from not having housing and the extreme difficulty of that situation.

Other areas with higher rates of addiction, but cheaper housing, have lower rates of homelessness. Cheaper housing really does allow people to get off the streets.

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

#135

Post by [deleted] »

dahfizz wrote: post #43
gretch wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a property owner, I've always found this to be remarkably short sighted. If the city booms, land value goes up. E.g. Manhattan. Trying to keep your small suburb a small suburb isn't maximizing investor value. edit: to responders, yes I'm aware houses have other value. My comment is in response the parent comment that specifically addresses investment value protection aspect.

Some people just want to live in a small suburb

[deleted]

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

#136

Post by singlow »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #90
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 I want to collect old VW busses and park them in the front yard, I don't care what effect this has on my neighbors property value. This is my home. If you don't want to deal with living near other people, move to the country. Many (most?) of these types of rules are imposed by HOAs made up of property owners, not the city.

I think most larger cities have rules against parking vehicles in a yard visible to the street. In the driveway is usually ok. And converting more of your yard into driveway is usually restricted by zoning as well.

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

#137

Post by metalforever »

LewisVerstappen wrote: post #38
daveguy wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, we are going to find out. Something tells me everyone who's homeless isn't a fentanyl addict. Especially given housing costs.

> Something tells me everyone who's homeless isn't a fentanyl addict. Especially given housing costs SF/LA has numerous programs that will give you housing if you're homeless. The issue is that many of the homeless refuse to take up these programs and insist on staying in their tents.... because they're mentally ill.... because of drugs.

so i am dealing with this issue with a good friend of mine right now, who is homeless in the city of san francisco. No, this isnt true , theres a very very long waitlist for assistance. His credit is shot and he cannot find a new rental. so, hes been living in a hotel. Hes paying the daily, so he has money.

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

#138

Post by yamtaddle »

dahfizz wrote: post #43
gretch wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a property owner, I've always found this to be remarkably short sighted. If the city booms, land value goes up. E.g. Manhattan. Trying to keep your small suburb a small suburb isn't maximizing investor value. edit: to responders, yes I'm aware houses have other value. My comment is in response the parent comment that specifically addresses investment value protection aspect.

Some people just want to live in a small suburb

Everybody (for certain values of "everybody", I guess I should specify because this is HN) wants 0.5-5 acres on the edge of a nice, compact city. A little land, no close neighbors, but still very close to everything and the city itself is nice & pleasant to visit.

But if too many people get it, you don't have a compact city anymore, you have a sprawl hellscape that's neither country nor city, but a habitat for cars.

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

#139

Post by opportune »

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 new larger tax base can have their taxes spent on schools, roads, and public transit. Also public transit benefits a lot from density so it should get more efficient per taxpayer, not less.

If a city still refuses to comply, they will just be shooting themselves in the foot.

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

#140

Post by scruple »

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 I want to collect old VW busses and park them in the front yard, I don't care what effect this has on my neighbors property value. This is my home. If you don't want to deal with living near other people, move to the country.

I don't like that we have to have laws like this in society anymore than you do. But you're kind of ignoring Chesterton's fence here.

I've lived next to places like you're describing, and I don't mean trash heaps like you see in rural parts of America, though I've lived next to them, too. I mean collectors who simply fall behind on preventative maintenance for mundane reasons. So I don't care until I'm forced to... Which is typically when the rats show up.

Post reply on HN