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

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

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 228 posts

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

#151

Post by meany »

pigsty wrote: post #135
krisroadruck wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think all the people who have washers and dryers in their own homes would disagree that having a laundromat on their street would be a value add. It would just bring traffic from outside of their neighborhood into it. I'm not making a case for or against, but instead saying this is a matter of perspective based on who's making the judgement call.

You could say the same about restaurants, stores, or streets themselves. Those people can choose to live in the woods away from society if that’s a problem. The vast majority of people like having things they need within a few minutes of their home—particularly people who aren’t in HOA-governed cookie cutter suburbs.

Are you sure that its the majority in the districts they have the zoning? If it was the majority, wouldn't the rules change?

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

#152

Post by rsync »

astrange wrote: post #141
rsync wrote: 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.

"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 ..."

Everyone thinks they want to "get rid of zoning" but, of course, there are "obvious" rules we would all need to follow and "of course you can't do that" ... and it quickly becomes murky as to where "zoning" begins and ends and which regulations are "legitimate" or not.

Either people can communally decide what rules they want to enact or they can't.

If they can, restricting multi-family housing is as legitimate as anything else in a democracy. Like allowing or disallowing horses. Or limits to vehicles-on-blocks-in-the-front-yard. Or ad-hoc septic systems.

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

#153

Post by astrange »

jojobas wrote: post #148
astrange wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Out of Tokyo and San Francisco, which one requires all new buildings to go to subjective design reviews where your neighbors complain about shadows and tell you they don't like the color you plan to paint it and the style of windows facing the road?

Hint: it's not Tokyo, which actually does have a fair number of old ugly poorly-maintained buildings scattered around random nice neighborhoods. Which is fine and not hurting anyone.

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

#154

Post by krisroadruck »

pigsty wrote: post #135
krisroadruck wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think all the people who have washers and dryers in their own homes would disagree that having a laundromat on their street would be a value add. It would just bring traffic from outside of their neighborhood into it. I'm not making a case for or against, but instead saying this is a matter of perspective based on who's making the judgement call.

You could say the same about restaurants, stores, or streets themselves. Those people can choose to live in the woods away from society if that’s a problem. The vast majority of people like having things they need within a few minutes of their home—particularly people who aren’t in HOA-governed cookie cutter suburbs.

This is factually incorrect and easily verifiable so. The vast majority - 80% of the US population prefers single family homes. There are 138 Million households in the US and fully half - 68 million - reside in owner occupied single family homes, another ~15% (about 44 million people) live in rented single family homes. This is just the people who have achieved the desired outcome. There are another 15% of people who would prefer to be in one, but just haven't gotten there yet.

Very few people actually want to be stacked on top of each other and packed in like sardines around a bunch of loud shops and offices. Very few people want to walk through dirty city streets stepping over feces and around homeless people or forced to be smushed in with strangers on public transportation to grab their groceries. They want to be 5-10 minutes away from that stuff in a car which they can afford to own. The reason a lot of people are putting up with this anyway is an affordability issue only. They are forced to work in a handful of cities to be paid well and the cost of parking and the congestion in these cities make it impractical to own a car or commute.

I obviously know there is a slice of people who actually do just love the hell out of city life and wouldn't trade NYC or SF for the world, but to claim that this is the vast majority is demonstrably false.

Edit: Adding a source. There are many, but this one is nice in that it breaks it out by age in addition to overall and breaks out actual vs preferred.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/245249/americans-big-idea-livin...

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

#156

Post by lotsoweiners »

chung8123 wrote: post #144
astrange wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah exactly. While I obviously care about my property value, my interest is in living amongst other property owning families.

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

#157

Post by fragmede »

chung8123 wrote: post #144
astrange wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But also people want single family housing because US made apartments are complete shit. They're poorly insulated to heat and sound which means all sorts of unnecessary interaction with your immediate neighbors, making apartment living that much worse, driving the demand of single family housing up.

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

#158

Post by rcpt »

rsync wrote: post #152
astrange wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"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 ..." Everyone thinks they want to "get rid of zoning" but, of course, there are "obvious" rules we would all need to follow and "of course you can't do that " ... and it quickly becomes murky as to where "zoning" begins and ends and which regulations are "legi…

> people can communally decide

How big is this community? Who decides that?

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

#159

Post by rcpt »

throw009 wrote: post #106
astrange wrote: post #58

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.

[flagged]

Where I live in Los Angeles we have honest to god oil derricks right in the middle of residential neighborhoods and on school campuses.

If zoning can't stop that but is preventing duplexes then it's clearly not doing any of the good its been advertised as.

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

#160

Post by astrange »

fragmede wrote: post #157
chung8123 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But also people want single family housing because US made apartments are complete shit. They're poorly insulated to heat and sound which means all sorts of unnecessary interaction with your immediate neighbors, making apartment living that much worse, driving the demand of single family housing up.

If people wanted single family housing that bad they wouldn't have to mandate it via zoning.

Sounds like they should change the building code instead.

Post reply on HN