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

161–170 of 228 posts

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

#161

Post by throw009 »

krisroadruck wrote: post #154
pigsty wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's all very nice but the calculations would change quite quickly if people had to pay for the upkeep of the roads they use for their cars. Cities for the most part use their productive core to subsidise the unproductive suburbs until they inevitably go bankrupt when the roads build 40 years ago need to be replaced.

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

#164

Post by guywithahat »

> “I straight up told people I was going to file something if things didn’t shape up. I went to all the meetings and said, ‘Here are the deficiencies,’ he said. “We have so grossly underbuilt housing in California for a half century that you could drop a tent on the ground anywhere in the state and someone will occupy it.”

I really like that quote. Unfortunately I'm concerned instead of drafting adequate plans the city will just use all of its resources to sue people for using builders remedy permits.

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

#165

Post by pigsty »

krisroadruck wrote: post #154
pigsty wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You’ve made a few massive leaps by assuming a single family home can’t possibly have a shop nearby, and that if it did it’d mean people are dodging feces.

Because you can literally go just about anywhere outside of America and see that people live in homes right next to businesses and… it’s fine. We’re not dodging feces and homeless people. Frankly, most places I’ve been to and lived have been much cleaner than my old US homes despite the fact I’m literally a 2 minute walk from a two separate stores and several restaurants in an area where everyone lives in detached homes.

That rant reads like fearmongering from a person with little outside exposure.

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

#166

Post by jojobas »

astrange wrote: post #153
jojobas wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hur…

I'm not talking about building houses in absence of personal contact, I'm talking about keeping horses, llamas and half-built cars in a residential area.

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

#167

Post by astrange »

jojobas wrote: post #166
astrange wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hur…

I'm not talking about building houses in absence of personal contact, I'm talking about keeping horses, llamas and half-built cars in a residential area.

What's the difference that isn't a posthoc fallacy?

Cause suburban Americans are famous busybodies. There's no way you can outdo them. They think anyone walking past their house is casing it for a robbery and will call the police and post on Nextdoor about it.

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

#168

Post by shuckles »

encoderer wrote: post #85
shuckles wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it nonsense for the state to fund shelter programs by buying out non-viable businesses (empty motels at the height of the pandemic), bailing out both business owners and building shelter capacity at much lower cost than building it new?

Suppose you buy every hotel in the sfba and move in every homeless person, totally clearing the streets. What happens next? Just no more homeless? No, more homeless will appear. They will fill the same corners and tents that you just cleared the month before. This is not a solution. This is a grift.

You are making something of an induced demand argument that basic services for people who can't care for themselves will generate more such people. Fortunately, most people of sound mind understand that living in a former Motel 6 is not a good life and in practice the number of people who are "incentivized" by it are much less than the number of people taken off the streets by shelter. That's why cities with robust shelter programs like Houston have far fewer unsheltered homeless people.

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

#169

Post by shuckles »

jeffbee wrote: post #142
shuckles wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah the UC has the great blessing of not being subject to local zoning and the great curse of being a public project subject to CEQA no matter what.

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

#170

Post by jjeaff »

jeffbee wrote: post #89
jmyeet wrote: post #74

I think this article overstates the risks to those wanting to use the builder's remedy. It suggests wealthy towns would have the means to fight this in court. But the reality is the towns have very little legal defense. Just last year, 4000+ new units were approved via the builder's remedy in Santa Monica, a rich envlcave of LA that has notoriously fought development with oppressive zoning for decades. Also, the poin…

I think it's overstating the case that 4000 units were "approved" in Santa Monica. Some guy pulled papers on the project. Get back to me if any of them break ground. So far, only 899 units worth have filed complete applications and zero of these have got anywhere in the rest of the process. I would not advise holding your breath. Cities have various ways to stop projects. They can drag out things like demolition perm…

I'm not sure how the funding formula works exactly, but it seems like the problem is far from fixed. You can look at any public school in a wealthy suburb and it will have lavish amenities and everything a student could want or need. While many inner city schools look like cinderblock prisons.
Post reply on HN