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

171–180 of 228 posts

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

#171

Post by danaris »

rsync wrote: post #136
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.

"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…

> What you will actually get is half-built cars. Everywhere. You will get mobile homes and immobile RVs. You will get horses. Not rich-people horses, but "Grandma died and she had a horse and nobody knew what to do with it so we fenced part of the front yard" horses. Someone will disconnect from city sewer because they "know how to build septic". Someone will get llamas.

a) It sounds like what you're saying is "you'll get poor people". There are several things wrong with that, the first one being the rampant classism inherent in it.

b) So you'll get horses, and mobile homes. So what? Oooh, are you afraid your property values will drop? Deal with it. That's a small price to pay to enable the kinds of walkable neighborhoods mixed zoning allows, and the kind of rejuvenated communities it creates.

c) Allowing residential and commercial zones to mix has nothing to do with people trying to build their own septic systems.

All in all, it sounds to me like you experienced what happens when you live in a lower-income area, that happens not to have strong zoning laws, and your takeaway from that experience is that the lack of zoning caused the lower-income parts. Correlation is not causation, and not letting rich people stuff poor people away in a corner and forget about them is absolutely part of what we need to do.

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

#172

Post by danaris »

gameman144 wrote: post #121
astrange wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now it's probably because people don't like "traffic" outside their homes, but basically yes, that's why single-family zoning is still in place. It's extremely silly to want to ban eg corner stores in your neighborhood. In SF where people have discovered "left-NIMBYism", people will now argue that keeping it is fighting racism, but then if you go into the suburbs they'll still happily argue the original position.

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.

Things can be used for other reasons than the reason they were invented.

It's important to pay attention to the reasons things were invented, especially things that allow different kinds of social control.

Both of these things can be true at the same time.

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

#173

Post by astrange »

danaris wrote: post #171
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…

> What you will actually get is half-built cars. Everywhere. You will get mobile homes and immobile RVs. You will get horses. Not rich-people horses, but "Grandma died and she had a horse and nobody knew what to do with it so we fenced part of the front yard" horses. Someone will disconnect from city sewer because they "know how to build septic". Someone will get llamas. a) It sounds like what you're saying is "you'l…

> a) It sounds like what you're saying is "you'll get poor people".

It's more like trashy (rural coded?) middle class people I think. Collectors of broken cars and llamas aren't that poor! Similarly, you see pictures of people in, say, West Virginia with tons of stuff in their yard and kinda messy houses, but they're homeowners in a rich first world country and I suspect they're often pretty well off for the area. It's more of a personality thing.

The confusing part for me was that there are mobile homes and RVs everywhere in Silicon Valley because there aren't enough homes due to the super strict zoning.

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

#174

Post by jojobas »

astrange wrote: post #167
jojobas wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You don't seem to understand what I'm talking about. Imagine a HOA that has a say as what you wear, what you cook and what colour your curtains are, except it doesn't exist except in your mind through how you were brought up. A mere thought of your neighbor greeting you in a slightly abnormal manner because you are wearing bright green sneakers is enough for you not to buy them.

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

#175

Post by midoridensha »

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…

Tokyo actually does have rules about shadows: new building plans have to show how the new building will affect the sunlight of neighboring buildings. I think there's some limitations along these lines, but not a lot. But yeah, you can make your building as ugly as you want.

Anyway, those older, ugly, poorly-maintained buildings eventually get torn down and replaced with something better, because the land value is very high. It's much more laissez-faire than the US and property rights are much, much stronger (the idea that you should mostly be able to do what you want with your property).

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

#176

Post by mc32 »

rsync wrote: post #136
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.

"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 think it's reasonable to invoke Chesterton's Fence here. We have to fully understand the potential consequences before enacting something potentially rife with unintended consequences before dismantling a system.

We've lived with Zoning over a century and we ought to have an understanding of what unwanted changes could come about if that were suddenly lifted. It's not that we _should not_ do it but we should make changes in a measured, purposeful and understood manner so we don't end up like unregulated favelas (not in the sense of being mostly poor, but in the sense that anything goes.)

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

#177

Post by lokar »

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…

Los Altos did not zone hundreds of thousands of jobs without housing, Mountain View and San Francisco did that.

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

#178

Post by ryan_lane »

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.

You can't buy a car unless you have proof you have a parking spot, so the cars part is out. Same deal with RVs. No street parking, no RV.

There's no space for people to have a horse.

There's plenty of places that I think everyone would call a "shack" made from old tin that's probably been around since the 50s or so, and is not really any different from a mobile home. So that exists here and people are generally OK with it.

People wouldn't disconnect from the sewer to do septic. That isn't a zoning issue, it's a public health one, and it's obviously illegal.

Honestly, none of the hypotheticals described have to do with zoning. Social pressure to do the right thing is a thing here, but not the only reason that things aren't super chaotic.

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

#179

Post by ryan_lane »

midoridensha wrote: post #175
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…

Tokyo actually does have rules about shadows: new building plans have to show how the new building will affect the sunlight of neighboring buildings. I think there's some limitations along these lines, but not a lot. But yeah, you can make your building as ugly as you want. Anyway, those older, ugly, poorly-maintained buildings eventually get torn down and replaced with something better, because the land value is ver…

I was recently looking to buy a house, and the agent said this is the reason for the weird shapes of housing. You can't build a building in such a way that reduces the light into bedrooms. There's a certain amount of light available for a room that allows it to be classified as a bedroom or not. Hence why you'll see places listed as a 3LDK with a "storage room", rather than a 4LDK in some cases.

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

#180

Post by isignal »

lokar wrote: post #177
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…

Los Altos did not zone hundreds of thousands of jobs without housing, Mountain View and San Francisco did that.

Majority of folks in Los Altos are workers in those jobs.
Post reply on HN