Live data from Hacker News

Bay Area homeowner is the face of California’s latest housing drama

sfchronicle.com

141–150 of 228 posts

Re: Bay Area homeowner is the face of California’s latest housing drama

#141
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Residential-only zoning is "the bad kind of zoning". It wasn't invented to keep factories away from homes; it was /literally/ invented in Berkeley to stop Chinese immigrants from being able to afford homes by running laundry businesses out of them.

"Residential-only zoning is "the bad kind of zoning"." I wish I could mind-meld with you and transmit the memories and experiences of growing up in a residential area with no zoning. You know that sci-fi trope where the empath gets the memory dump and breaks away screaming and crying because they can't handle the trauma that comes through ? It would be like that. You think you'll get cute shops and pop-ups and deligh…

I've been to Japan (+ several other countries that aren't the US). It's pretty nice there.

As to whether or not zoning laws are what prevent people from owning horses, that's not clear to me. But a law saying you can't build a bookstore or apartment on the lot doesn't seem very related.

Re: Bay Area homeowner is the face of California’s latest housing drama

#142
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that is current law or jurisprudence. There is a bill introduced in this session that will make any project consequent to an adopted general, area, or specific plan be "not a project" under CEQA. But that's not where we are now, which is why cities have to EIR their general plans and then every project has another EIR. Personally, I think they should just write down that anything inside the boundary of…

Yes it is: private projects are only subject to CEQA if permits are discretionary cf https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21723 . In San Francisco and some neighboring cities, every permit is discretionary either directly or through ambiguity ( https://law.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk10866/files/medi... ), but it doesn’t have to be that way.

Thanks. I was thinking about projects like UC housing. I believe the new bill is meant to exempt public agencies from this problem.

Re: Bay Area homeowner is the face of California’s latest housing drama

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They really do re-spawn if being homeless now means being given a nice, new, clean place to live. Why wouldn’t they?

There's so much evidence from research on unhoused populations and housing-first programs in the US and around the world, but you've got "why wouldn't they" on your side, so all of that evidence should probably be ignored.

What are some other examples of cases where we don't get more of what we subsidize?

Re: Bay Area homeowner is the face of California’s latest housing drama

#144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that the reason something was made defines its current reason for existing seems demonstrably wrong, though. Consider the microwave magnetron: invented to mess with radar, but now in every kitchen. Maybe the reasons haven't changed in this instance, but holding that as a rule seems pretty incorrect.

Luckily we don't have to argue about abstractions since we can just go look at land use. I do think a lot of people want to keep single family zoning because they think it makes their properties more valuable but 1. historical segregation is part of that and 2. if your home price goes up, that only makes you richer as long as you don't want to buy any other homes that've also gone up.

People want single family zoning because they enjoy it more. People wanting single family housing is what makes it valuable not the single family housing itself.

Re: Bay Area homeowner is the face of California’s latest housing drama

#146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it’s just completely untrue. This is a common tactic today to say something was created for purposes so the entire concept is bad naturally. See how activists say policing was invented to catch slaves or some ridiculous claim. There’s a bunch of others.

Yes, it is absolutely ridiculous that slave patrols existed and formed the basis for later police departments in the south. It is also ridiculous that labor-busting squads existed in the north, which formed the basis for later police departments in the north. The history is there, it is what it is, as ridiculous as that is. You might argue that modern police have far outgrown their origins, and then it would be up to…

Ancient Rome had police. Get real. Boston has the oldest police department. And although some slave states used police for it, it’s ridiculous to compare todays policing as anything like it.

Re: Bay Area homeowner is the face of California’s latest housing drama

#147
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did a search to check the history of this claim, but maybe I wasn’t searching for the right thing. Would you mind sharing a link?

No it’s just completely untrue. This is a common tactic today to say something was created for purposes so the entire concept is bad naturally. See how activists say policing was invented to catch slaves or some ridiculous claim. There’s a bunch of others.

> This is a common tactic today to say something was created for purposes so the entire concept is bad naturally.

I've yet to see a good counter-example.

Re: Bay Area homeowner is the face of California’s latest housing drama

#148
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Residential-only zoning is "the bad kind of zoning"." I wish I could mind-meld with you and transmit the memories and experiences of growing up in a residential area with no zoning. You know that sci-fi trope where the empath gets the memory dump and breaks away screaming and crying because they can't handle the trauma that comes through ? It would be like that. You think you'll get cute shops and pop-ups and deligh…

I've been to Japan (+ several other countries that aren't the US). It's pretty nice there. As to whether or not zoning laws are what prevent people from owning horses, that's not clear to me. But a law saying you can't build a bookstore or apartment on the lot doesn't seem very related.

In Japan you just don't do any of those things due to exceptionally high, by European or American standard, social pressure do to The Right Thing.

Or, at the very least, to not do anything out of the ordinary.

Re: Bay Area homeowner is the face of California’s latest housing drama

#149
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Citing an article or publication in rebuttal would be a more productive way to make this critique..

You can help yourself to the info on what happened when homeless people were put in hotels during covid.

Most of them are homeless for because they can't live in a home.

Re: Bay Area homeowner is the face of California’s latest housing drama

#150
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Residential-only zoning is "the bad kind of zoning". It wasn't invented to keep factories away from homes; it was /literally/ invented in Berkeley to stop Chinese immigrants from being able to afford homes by running laundry businesses out of them.

"Residential-only zoning is "the bad kind of zoning"." I wish I could mind-meld with you and transmit the memories and experiences of growing up in a residential area with no zoning. You know that sci-fi trope where the empath gets the memory dump and breaks away screaming and crying because they can't handle the trauma that comes through ? It would be like that. You think you'll get cute shops and pop-ups and deligh…

The article is about a "builders remedy" around zoning. It isn't going to change anything about cars, mobile homes, RVs, horses, llamas or sewers.
Post reply on HN