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

Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

darrellowens.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 1001 posts

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#181

Post by nemo44x »

jedberg wrote: post #127

There is a developer in Cupertino who has been fighting with the city for years, who got awfully quiet lately. Now I know why. I suspect they have a plan for an absolutely massive high rise behind my house that they will be submitting at 8am tomorrow morning. My neighbors are going to be pissed .

Yes, people here celebrating this don't understand at all that all this does is give developers more power over communities they have no interest in but money. And of course, the politicians that they will fund/bribe to make this happen.

We just went from democracy to oligarchy in this case.

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#182

Post by [deleted] »

PuppyTailWags wrote: post #163
LewisVerstappen wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Something tells me everyone who's homeless isn't a fentanyl addict. Especially given housing costs SF/LA has numerous programs that will give you housing if you're homeless. The issue is that many of the homeless refuse to take up these programs and insist on staying in their tents.... because they're mentally ill.... because of drugs.

The provision of housing to the homeless can be refused for a lot of reasons. One being that the housing might be in a place where the person has no access or restricted access to other social programs such as food or jobs programs. The housing might make them feel unsafe, such as being crammed into a shelter. The housing might be overly restrictive, such as refusing to allow them to bring their pet which may be the…

[deleted]

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#183

Post by rcpt »

gretch wrote: post #39
ethanbond wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth, most zoning is created by property owners, too. Gotta preserve their investment at the expense of our nation's growth.

As a property owner, I've always found this to be remarkably short sighted. If the city booms, land value goes up. E.g. Manhattan. Trying to keep your small suburb a small suburb isn't maximizing investor value. edit: to responders, yes I'm aware houses have other value. My comment is in response the parent comment that specifically addresses investment value protection aspect.

It's the variance.

If you're already 5x leveraged into a single asset in a single location whose value is wholly outside of your control you don't need the extra risk of redevelopment

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#184

Post by dylan604 »

thepasswordis wrote: post #91
dylan604 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so let me ask from a point of trying to see it the other way, why do you want broken-down trash cars out in the open of your house? if you're just playing devil's advocate, then whatever, but if you truly want trash cars, I truly want to hear why

Because don't feel like I have to justify what i want to do on my own property to anybody except my wife.

but see, you're not being fair to the question. i'm not asking for justification. i'm asking why you want trash cars. it's no different than asking why your favorite food is what it might ever be. there's no judgement in my asking. i'm just trying to understand, you know, to get to know you. maybe you'll have a strong reason for it that convinces me to want trash cars in my yard too. but you'll never know because you take this immediate position of justification and non-answers

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#185

Post by thepasswordis »

masklinn wrote: post #105
mschuster91 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how you can landscape it, what kinds of cars you can keep in your own driveway These two at least make some sense. The former, landscaping restrictions, can be used to prevent people from creating groundwater issues or flood risks, and the latter... no one wants a neighbor in a residential zone keeping broken-down trash cars out in the open. Some things have to be regulated even in a relatively free society because…

> The former, landscaping restrictions, can be used to prevent people from creating groundwater issues or flood risks Hahaha the GP is misattributing the issue. These are usually HOA strictures, and HOA will require green lawns in the middle of a desert.

I said elsewhere so sorry for repeating, but: you should find your city's code and read it. Almost all cities at this point have adopted things that used to be exclusive to HOAs.

For instance, this is west des moines, Iowa: https://www.wdm.iowa.gov/government/public-services/communit...

Terms like "Junk and debris in the yard." get tortured to mean almost literally anything. Also 10" of weeds can grow in a matter of days after a rain.

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#186

Post by grumple »

ethanbond wrote: post #17
thepasswordis wrote: post #5

Wow that's great news! The level of bureaucratic creep that has been imposed on property owners is actually unbelievable to me. I obviously understand some regulations (you can't built a chemical processing plant in a residential neighborhood, obviously), but cities have creeped themselves into all-powerful overseers. Most cities now have the power to tell you what kind of house you can build, how you can paint it, h…

For what it's worth, most zoning is created by property owners, too. Gotta preserve their investment at the expense of our nation's growth.

Zoning is also used to preserve the character of a neighborhood. Unfortunately, that typically includes racial character. The US has a long history of zoning as a proxy for redlining and racism [0].

0. https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2021/06/17/...

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#187

Post by HDThoreaun »

kqr2 wrote: post #48

How would the builder's remedy work in a place like Atherton if the homeowners form a pact and refuse to sell to any developers? E.g. if Marc Andreessen ( https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/marc-andre... ) and Steph Curry ( https://therealdeal.com/2023/01/29/steph-curry-shoots-his-ni... ) form a coalition with other residents then they can effectively keep the city down zoned even if builder's remedy i…

How would a coalition work here? They have no power to stop anyone from defecting. Unless Marc and Steph offer to buy any property in Atherton at absurd values they're powerless to stop a developer from buying someones house.

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#188

Post by mc32 »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #119
mc32 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Goodbye "high-rises can't be built in SF because they cast an unsightly shadow". But also hope it doesn't mean California gets to regulate San Jose's "green belt".

isn't building high-rises in SF precarious because the ground is soft, with inadequate bedrock? are there also concerns about aesthetics, if i understand?

Here is someone who goes into detail about the Millennium Tower debacle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph9O9yJoeZY

In short, shortcuts, or more charitably, miscalculations. They really thought they had enough margin to work with but obviously that wasn’t the case.

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#189

Post by epistasis »

silksowed wrote: post #143

ocean sky scrapers on the west side of the bay area? hard to even picture this

The coastal zone is also subject to Coastal Commission oversight, which I believe could override the Builder's Remedy, though the legal specifics would probably have to be settled in court, IIRC. Chris Elmendorf has written on this, if you want details.

But the prospect of a long lawsuit or a long decision will be enough to kill nearly all Builders Remedy projects in the coastal zone, as it would jack up the risk of success far too high to pay for the profits, most likely.

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#190

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

LewisVerstappen wrote: post #10
p0pcult wrote: post #2

This seems like a way to reduce homelessness and fix the housing market in one fell swoop.

> reduce homelessness Is the homeless problem due to the cost of housing? Or is it moreso due to fentanyl?

It's not really going to help the people that most imagine when they think of their personal experience of homelessness. i.e. people sleeping in the streets or on the subway, or the "crazy people" you cross the street to avoid.

For example, in NYC, more than 95% of the homeless are actually sheltered (whether in the city shelter system, or in other temporary situations like doubling up with friends or relatives), and more than 80% of homelessness is situational rather chronic. 30% of homeless families have at least one employed adult. 60% of all shelter residents are families.

Most spending on combating homelessness is invisible to us; and most improvements in affordable housing are going to have little impact on the (predominantly) male, drug-using and/or mentally-ill street sleepers.

Post reply on HN