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

Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 180 posts

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#141

Post by davidw »

shitlord wrote: post #56
jonahhorowitz wrote: post #13

Looks like the California legislature can move fast when it wants to. Now fix the rest of CEQA.

CEQA is just one symptom of the problem. Entrenched interests will use anything at their disposal to prevent development: zoning regulations, building codes, concerns about racial/socioeconomic equity, legal stalling tactics, etc.

I wrote this one up about a small development here in Bend, Oregon:

https://bendyimby.com/2022/01/08/hacking-land-use-laws-for-e...

They will literally grasp at anything that lets them stop homes from being built.

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#142

Post by astrange »

casefields wrote: post #83
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The environmental review process is broken [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/13/opinion/berkeley-enrollme...

Hogwash. CEQA is doing exactly what it was meant to do. By its very nature it's a conservative ideal that we should be careful about development. That process slows/stops things you hate, but also things you like.

And that's bad. CEQA has no respect for projects that improve the status quo and is mainly used for concern trolling by NIMBYs - that's why it takes ten years to add a bus lane in SF. Don't need to write an EIR for not changing anything.

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#143

Post by davidw »

Abekkus wrote: post #122
mperham wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, what it does is force development thru sprawl which decimates wild lands. Our cities need to grow upwards, not outwards.

Cities don't need to grow far upwards if they just throw out cars. 3-5 floors are plenty

I've always loved this article comparing different kinds of growth in the real world:

https://www.sightline.org/2017/09/21/yes-you-can-build-your-...

I'm a 'Montreal' guy, and you sound like one too from your comment, but everyone has different tastes.

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#144

Post by namlem »

devwastaken wrote: post #125

Government protects government. This is further proof universities are above the law, so much so they get brand new law made just for them, but not for you. Remove federal funding of universities. This is a racket that must be put down for the betterment of society.

If any university system deserves special status, it's UC. They are what universities should aspire to be.

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#145

Post by davidw »

paranoidrobot wrote: post #135
thetinguy wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell that to delivery drivers

When talking about "throwing out cars" I suspect what most would mean is re-architecting cities to be less car-dependent. Walkable cities with well integrated public transit and mixed retail, restaurants/cafes and residential, so that you don't need a car to go and do your grocery shopping, get a coffee or even most regular purchases. Many (most?) European cities are like this to a greater or lesser degree - you stil…

> Many (most?) European cities are like this to a greater or lesser degree - you still get deliveries, but you can walk, or ride a bike, or catch a bus/tram/metro to most places you want to go

Yes! Where we lived in Padova, Italy, transportation was a 'right tool for the job' situation. We did have a car, and used it from time to time, but we also walked, biked and took transit, depending on what we needed to do.

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#146

Post by stellar678 »

crhulls wrote: post #111
ryukafalz wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Given the proximity to San Francisco, the real estate prices have skyrocketed. Almost all my blue collar friends have had to move. It is sad that we have become a neighborhood for tourists and wealthy tech owner second homes. But, the character of the town remains, which is a nice silver lining. You see why it’s become that, and why your blue collar friends have had to move though, right? It’s not just that it’s cl…

If you talk to the people who grew up here, even the ones who were forced to move due to costs are not supportive of the current affordable housing plans. They want to come back and visit the town they grew up in. For example, I have a caretaker on my property who lives in a trailer and even he doesn't want the plans to go through - he wants the town to stay rural. I'm also on the village association and while almost…

Can you describe a bit more clearly what the state is requiring of towns around Point Reyes?

Looking at the top line numbers of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation plan - the Bay Area needs to make space for an additional 440k homes in the next 9 years. Presuming that gets allocated evenly based on population, Point Reyes Station with 1,000 people needs to build about 6 homes per year for the next decade.

Even one huge apartment building would massively overshoot the needs for Point Reyes Station. But I suppose the requirements would be more sensibly met with townhouses or small apartments or some kind of senior housing.

Am I missing some numbers, or maybe there's another program or changes that I'm not aware of?

I generally agree that our low density places should stay low density. Point Reyes is not a job center, not a sensible commuting destination, and a difficult and expensive place to build basic infrastructure like power, water, sewer - so it doesn't make sense to build a lot of housing there.

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#147

Post by 2143 »

mistrial9 wrote: post #7

A college town that was filled with ordinary college commotion is largely silent day and night. The streets of Berkeley, California near campus are empty for more than a year now. University Avenue, a major road leading to campus is quiet day and night, it used to be filled with cars, music and daily activity. Half of restaurants and most retail have closed in the last two years; parties are hidden due to covid-19. W…

> UC Berkeley continues to bring in nine-figure money with off-shore students paying high tuition, looking for their chance to strike it rich in the high tech scene, while those of ordinary means are economically crushed.

First of all, it's definitely much less than 9 figures.

UC Berkeley is one of the top schools not just in America, but in the world. Of course the brightest minds of the world would want to go there (or similar places like MIT/Stanford/Harvard etc).

Also, the economics eventually works out. Those high tuition is foreign money coming into the US — though probably a drop in the ocean compared to US economy as a whole — is nevertheless a good thing. Smart people from other countries coming into America is a good thing.

Would you rather prefer all those smart people go to, say Oxford UK, TU-Munich, ETH Zurich etc (which are other popular destinations of foreign students)?

Be grateful that smart people want to come in.

PS: I'm one of those "offshore students" (though not in Berkeley) who have "gone back to their country" after graduating; had a wonderful time in America :)

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#148

Post by pgodzin »

shitlord wrote: post #56
jonahhorowitz wrote: post #13

Looks like the California legislature can move fast when it wants to. Now fix the rest of CEQA.

CEQA is just one symptom of the problem. Entrenched interests will use anything at their disposal to prevent development: zoning regulations, building codes, concerns about racial/socioeconomic equity, legal stalling tactics, etc.

We should take away all of the legal pathways they can weaponize to prevent development.

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#149

Post by crhulls »

vwoolf wrote: post #121
crhulls wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you talk to the people who grew up here, even the ones who were forced to move due to costs are not supportive of the current affordable housing plans. They want to come back and visit the town they grew up in. For example, I have a caretaker on my property who lives in a trailer and even he doesn't want the plans to go through - he wants the town to stay rural. I'm also on the village association and while almost…

even the ones who were forced to move due to costs The policies you advocate are the ones that raise the cost of housing by limiting supply. Your own preferred policies force people to move, who can't afford the rent.

I acknowledge this - I am trying to point out that this is a complicated problem and even the people who would ostensibly benefit don't like the tops down state driven approach.

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#150

Post by crhulls »

pvg wrote: post #127
crhulls wrote: post #101

I'll share an unpopular opinion, loosely in defense of some elements of NIMBYism. I grew up in a small Marin County town called Point Reyes. It had 350 residents when I grew up, now maybe 1,000. The main reason people live there is to feel remote and rural. It is a way of life. Given the proximity to San Francisco, the real estate prices have skyrocketed. Almost all my blue collar friends have had to move. It is sad…

The main reason people live there is to feel remote and rural. It is a way of life. Point Reyes and surroundings have been a popular tourism destination for decades, though. A large chunk of the people living there would not live there if it wasn't that - they benefit from it and from the proximity to a large urban center. Representing it as some sort of remote rural backwater doesn't quite capture the nature of the…

It was a rural backwater years ago. I'm 38 and of the transition generation. It was always a bit touristy but many of the older folks who live there were hippies who wanted a cheap place to live far away from it all. I hear stories of how the houses even in the 70s were bought in cash because banks thought it was too risky to finance.

I know the reason I like being here is because it is remote and rural and I have a sense of comfort living in a place that doesn't change much.

Post reply on HN