Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by ROTMetro » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 5:36 PM UTC

PuppyTailWags wrote: post #77

dahfizz wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people just want to live in a small suburb

I get some people want to live in a small suburb. Small suburbs are often quiet and peaceful. But small suburbs are also inefficient, environmentally unfriendly, and expensive to support so much road/electricity/water/etc infrastructure for so few people. Especially if the voting base of the suburb is effectively strangling their children by ensuring their kids will never be able to themselves afford a life there. It…

Funny, I live in a small suburbia style town in the mountains, our infrastructure prices are much cheaper than California's, we have no big city we parasite off of, and everything here is much cheaper/affordable including housing, with a much smaller property tax base. We had Gb fiber while the big city had horrible DSL (if you were close enough to the DSLAM or whatever it was). We now have multiple Gb fiber options in our neighborhoods. Housing prices are affordable.

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

#192

Post by wrycoder » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 5:36 PM UTC

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 .

[flagged]

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

#193

Post by rjbwork » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 5:37 PM UTC

thepasswordis wrote: post #164

nlavezzo wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you don't want to deal with living near other people, move to the country. The reverse could also be said - if you don't want to deal with people deciding together that they want their community to have certain guidelines, move to the country. You can do pretty much whatever you want in rural areas without significantly impacting your neighbors. People living together in a small area do get to decide together wh…

Again this is where we are getting into what it means to own something. Do I own the property or not? If my neighbors want to get together and buy my house from me because they want to do something with it, then they are by all means allowed to do so.

Nobody in the US, and indeed most of the world, "owns" their property. Try not paying your property taxes, and see where that gets you. You lease the right to usus, mostly fructus, and to some extent abusus from the state.

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

#194

Post by grumple » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 5:38 PM UTC

lowdest wrote: post #179

jjtheblunt wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In one notable case, it was decided to not bore all the way down to bedrock, resulting is a sinking building and many lawsuits. More commonly, someone complains that a planned building will cast a shadow, and after spending millions the builders are not allowed to proceed.

The Millenium tower:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/10/san-francisc...

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8105988/

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

#195

Post by tsuru » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 5:38 PM UTC

I don't live in the area but I like the idea that the codes are updated to match the population. I hope there are some provisions for "access to sunlight" as the buildings grow -- something like Japan's Nisshoken policies... or I'd like to hear how that isn't a good idea for city planning.

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

#196

Post by HDThoreaun » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 5:38 PM UTC

nemo44x wrote: post #181

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.

No, what this does is give developers the power to bring affordable housing to california. Them making money is just the incentive to do it. Silicon valley was already an oligarchy since housing affordability ensures only the wealthy can afford to vote in local elections.

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

#197

Post by lowdest » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 5:38 PM UTC

nine_k wrote: post #71

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…

How would a broken-down car on a driveway ruin everyone else's life? Even so, today's trash car that does not look posh can be a tomorrow's restored historical car that does.

There are some properties in a neighboring county where a guy has been running junk yards in residential neighborhoods. 50+ rusted junkers stacked in a suburban yard, against local law. When the law finally is about to seize the land, he's moved it all to other residential properties in the area. Lawsuits have been going on since the 90s. I believe he's lost at least one house and possibly spent some time in jail, but it keeps going.

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

#198

Post by matchbok » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 5:38 PM UTC

nemo44x wrote: post #181

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.

They are building housing for people and are risking millions. How dare they make some money! How rude of them.

Hint: Developers don't have power over communities, rich homeowners do.

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

#199

Post by Camillo » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 5:39 PM UTC

IMHO the insistence on below-market-rate quotas is counterproductive in terms of the actual housing market (though it's probably necessary in terms of political feasibility). The BMR housing is _already built_: there is plenty of old, un-renovated housing in cities like San Francisco that ought to rent for far less than it does, were it not for the fact that quality housing is in such short supply that high-level demand spills over.

Concrete example: does your SF apartment have poor insulation? Single-pane windows? Creaking floors which are not level? In continental Europe, _that_ would be your low/medium income housing. Instead it's full of tech people because they have nowhere else to go.

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

#200

Post by mullingitover » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 5:39 PM UTC

nemo44x wrote: post #181

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.

So much of the problems with housing in the state stem from the fact that lots of community members are valuing their investment in their own house over everything else. Housing can either be affordable or it can be a good investment, it really can't be both.

At this point the market has been so perverted by entrenched interests blocking new development that I would be okay with a dictatorship of developers for a solid decade. It might be enough to dig us out of the hole we're in.