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

Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 329 posts

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#171

Post by 7952 »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #56
euyyn wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just for zoning requirements, not environmental ones, though.

Environmental requirements are often a back-door for NIMBY-ism. If you black-box the process, raising environmental concerns is a lever folks can pull to make specific proposed development more expensive and possibly cancelled. We have enough such levers. Everything of this "levers NIMBYs can pull to discourage development near them" category should get offloaded to a a bureaucracy that's empowered to ignore people y…

The trouble is that "environment" can grow to encompass many highly political issues beyond the most obvious things. It lets politicians wiggle out of deciding things by setting up a scientific process.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#172

Post by ericd »

closeparen wrote: post #104
abalashov wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure this rather dated precept is compatible with the exigencies of 21st century economics, and the flexibility, mobility and long hours demanded. For one thing, houses are cash sinks. It doesn't make sense for highly paid professionals to spend enormous amounts of time or money reshingling roofs, painting, mowing lawns, treating weeds, trimming hedges, repairing plumbing, etc. The deep specialisation and con…

>It doesn't make sense for highly paid professionals to spend enormous amounts of time or money reshingling roofs, painting, mowing lawns, treating weeds, trimming hedges, repairing plumbing So we pay HOA fees for high-rise condos. Rents in SF grew $2000 over 5 years. I would be ecstatic if my worst-case housing market outcome were a measly $250/mo. My standard of living is going to fall every year at lease renewal t…

Keep in mind that property taxes go up with the value of the property in most places. But yeah, generally more stable (and lower) than rent.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#173

Post by averagewall »

whyenot wrote: post #76

I have what would appear to be a good middle class job at a state university but because I live in the Bay Area, half my paycheck goes to rent. Many of my coworkers are now working weekend jobs just to stay ahead. Positions remain unfilled for many months because the jobs don't pay enough. The chances that the state will give us a meaningful pay raise is basically zero. The California Faculty Association negotiated a…

It sounds like working at a university in the Bay Area is what's unsustainable. Why not just let the market sort itself out? If the university can't find staff, they'll have no choice but to raise salaries or move out. No need for union pressure. You've chosen to take the low pay and high cost of living, so it must be good enough for you. Perhaps at some point you'll be pushed over your limit and move out yourself.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#174

Post by ericd »

mamon wrote: post #156

It recently occurred to me that NIMBY policies probably are secretly promoted by US government as a way of protecting cities against nuclear attack: thanks to them cities get spread on the largest possible area, minimizing potential casualties and damages by exploding nukes.

That actually was a design consideration in the 50s, especially for infrastructure. Part of the reason that highways were more favored was that they're more resistant to attack than trains.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#175

Post by [deleted] »

golemotron wrote: post #33

Maybe the answer is to stop growing and let other parts of the country grow. The brain drain to SV has been disastrous for other communities. It's contributed to inequality and deep geographic/political polarization. Yes, you can downvote me but consider formulating a counter-argument.

[deleted]

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#176

Post by hocuspocus »

frubar wrote: post #144
golemotron wrote: post #33

Maybe the answer is to stop growing and let other parts of the country grow. The brain drain to SV has been disastrous for other communities. It's contributed to inequality and deep geographic/political polarization. Yes, you can downvote me but consider formulating a counter-argument.

There is a very, very simple way to stop the "brain drain" to SV: start paying comparable salaries. Don't come with a bunch of crap about "cost of living". Pay those salaries, or better and you'll start pulling talent away from SV. As long as the other parts can't or won't provide similar opportunities they don't deserve to have the talent. The main thing capitalism is meant to do is prioritize where resources should…

It's not that simple. High salaries aren't the only benefit that comes from high concentration, there's also high fluidity in the job market. And it goes both ways. In our industry, employers are picky (what's the on-site to offer conversion rate at your company?), and potential employees are picky (rightly so, in my opinion) given the huge variance in job satisfaction.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#177

Post by ericd »

enf wrote: post #110
Tempest1981 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some are proposing state-forced re-zoning, converting residential neighborhoods into multi-family condos. Essentially the eminent domain taking of property. "Your land is too valuable; others need it". Kind of a slap in the face, after working a lifetime to afford a small home.

Rezoning gives nothing but the right to rebuild your own property as you wish to. No one is being forced to sell.

I think it depends on how strict the zoning is. The US has a tendency for relatively strict command economy style exclusive zoning.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#178

Post by dismantlethesun »

abalashov wrote: post #74
panzer_wyrm wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. Renting with no road to purchase turns you into serf. Owning your dwelling is the most basic form a security a human needs. I own a condo that I rent and live renting in other part of my city. The rents cancel each other. It works very nice for me. I definitely wish more people own their homes. I also love highrises.

I'm not sure this rather dated precept is compatible with the exigencies of 21st century economics, and the flexibility, mobility and long hours demanded. For one thing, houses are cash sinks. It doesn't make sense for highly paid professionals to spend enormous amounts of time or money reshingling roofs, painting, mowing lawns, treating weeds, trimming hedges, repairing plumbing, etc. The deep specialisation and con…

Since the value appreciates in land, condos do not tend to gain value over time. At best a condo will have the same value because of exhaustive maintenance.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#179

Post by red_hairing »

klipt wrote: post #100
red_hairing wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that is why if trump does manage to cut the EPA, it could drive down housing prices by increasing supply of new homes and apartments.

Pretty sure California's CEQA is independent of the EPA.

my comment applied to a greater scope than just california and a greater scope than the issues discussed in the article....

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#180

Post by [deleted] »

dang wrote: post #111
golemotron wrote: post #33

Maybe the answer is to stop growing and let other parts of the country grow. The brain drain to SV has been disastrous for other communities. It's contributed to inequality and deep geographic/political polarization. Yes, you can downvote me but consider formulating a counter-argument.

Please don't break the HN guidelines by downvote-baiting. Also, please don't unsubstantive, provocative comments; that's a trollish combination. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14304869 and marked it off-topic.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN