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

California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 133 posts

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#21

Post by rs186 »

mutator wrote: post #11

The discourse around high density housing does not make it clear what specific type of development do advocates prefer. Its likely that the market will have to decide for itself, but if we end up with an abundance of just 1/2 bedroom rental apartments, targeted towards transient younger people, I fear it's just going to enrich the property management class, and families with kids/older parents looking for larger plac…

I'll choose tall apartments with 1/2 bedroom rental units over nothing every day.

The only people who don't like to see "young people" paying $2500 in rent instead of $3500 for a 400sqft studio are landlords.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#22

Post by summerlight »

mutator wrote: post #11

The discourse around high density housing does not make it clear what specific type of development do advocates prefer. Its likely that the market will have to decide for itself, but if we end up with an abundance of just 1/2 bedroom rental apartments, targeted towards transient younger people, I fear it's just going to enrich the property management class, and families with kids/older parents looking for larger plac…

Unless we see unexpected side effects (like a lower number of housing or even more housing demands due to SB 79) I guess this will indirectly help the buyers looking for larger properties since so many people have no choice but purchasing a unnecessarily spacious house thanks to inflexible zoning.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#23

Post by SilverElfin »

jimt1234 wrote: post #9
ggm wrote: post #3

... near transit hubs. It should be a net positive if it doesn't die in the courts for every single proposal. It's also not enough by itself but Rome wasn't built in a day.

> ... near transit hubs. I don't understand this narrative that California has been pushing the last few years - basically, "There's a bus stop in the neighborhood, therefore we can add a bunch of new housing without doing any other infrastructure upgrades." I just don't see it. What I do see after new housing is added is insufferable traffic and no parking - and empty buses.

HN has one particular view, which is to keep increasing density without care for any other factor. But density does change neighborhoods and quality of life in many negative ways, including the example you shared. Someone may get to move into that area at a lower price. But someone else loses what they had. I don’t understand why those who demand lower priced housing are more valid. And too often, the response here is to attack anyone who brings up the negatives of high density living (edit: here come the oh-so-predictable downvotes). I suspect that is partly ideological, and partly due to age skewing younger here. But I wish there was more tolerance for mid-size towns that don’t get density forced on them, but can stay a healthy balanced size because that’s what the locals want to hold onto for their own quality of life.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#25

Post by lalaland1125 »

mutator wrote: post #11

The discourse around high density housing does not make it clear what specific type of development do advocates prefer. Its likely that the market will have to decide for itself, but if we end up with an abundance of just 1/2 bedroom rental apartments, targeted towards transient younger people, I fear it's just going to enrich the property management class, and families with kids/older parents looking for larger plac…

I think you are incorrectly missing that many larger units (both 3+ bedroom apartments and houses) are currently filled with singles or couples with roommates who would rather live alone in 1 or 2 bedrooms, but can't due to inadequate supply.

Building 1/2 bedrooms would help those people move out, freeing up larger units for families.

> I fear it's just going to enrich the property management class

The property management class benefits most from the current system with no construction and high rents. Building a bunch of 1/2 bedrooms, triggering lower rents, would cause them to lose money.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#26

Post by AlotOfReading »

SilverElfin wrote: post #23
jimt1234 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... near transit hubs. I don't understand this narrative that California has been pushing the last few years - basically, "There's a bus stop in the neighborhood, therefore we can add a bunch of new housing without doing any other infrastructure upgrades." I just don't see it. What I do see after new housing is added is insufferable traffic and no parking - and empty buses.

HN has one particular view, which is to keep increasing density without care for any other factor. But density does change neighborhoods and quality of life in many negative ways, including the example you shared. Someone may get to move into that area at a lower price. But someone else loses what they had. I don’t understand why those who demand lower priced housing are more valid. And too often, the response here i…

The people who want small, mid-sized towns are free to live literally anywhere they want outside major metro areas. There's 90+% of the state by land area left to them.

This discussion is and has always been centered around the housing crisis in urban centers, where it's been illegal to build density for decades. This has caused issues where those urban centers can't afford for people to provide critical services ( like teachers, laborers, medical staff, social services workers, etc) because housing simply doesn't exist at a price they can afford. Unless the suggestion is to make do with crumbling community services, housing reform is mandatory.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#27

Post by epistasis »

mutator wrote: post #11

The discourse around high density housing does not make it clear what specific type of development do advocates prefer. Its likely that the market will have to decide for itself, but if we end up with an abundance of just 1/2 bedroom rental apartments, targeted towards transient younger people, I fear it's just going to enrich the property management class, and families with kids/older parents looking for larger plac…

You don't think that younger people need housing too?

How about all the empty nesters that are sitting on 4 bedroom homes but are unwilling to move. Are you going to propose legislation to make them?

Will you propose legislation to specially encourage more multi bedroom homes?

The attitude of "this doesn't benefit a narrow band of people that I want to benefit, therefore it must be stopped" is why California is in such a housing mess right now.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#29

Post by epistasis »

jimt1234 wrote: post #9
ggm wrote: post #3

... near transit hubs. It should be a net positive if it doesn't die in the courts for every single proposal. It's also not enough by itself but Rome wasn't built in a day.

> ... near transit hubs. I don't understand this narrative that California has been pushing the last few years - basically, "There's a bus stop in the neighborhood, therefore we can add a bunch of new housing without doing any other infrastructure upgrades." I just don't see it. What I do see after new housing is added is insufferable traffic and no parking - and empty buses.

You are mistaken on the basic facts of where this permits more hosing.

You also do now understand people in urban areas and their desires. For example look at Seattle, which has added a lot of population, but only added 1 car per 30 new people:

https://www.theurbanist.org/2025/09/07/while-seattle-populat...

For a few generations, 99% of housing that was built was car dependent. That's not what the market wants. So when options are provided that allow living without a car, people flock to it.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#30

Post by lalaland1125 »

Schnitz wrote: post #24

[flagged]

What middle class SFHs? There are no middle class SFH neighborhoods remaining in Los Angeles or the Bay Area. Take a look at Zillow. Your average young person isn't buying anything anyways.

Your information is at least two decades, maybe three, out of date.

But this bill will help lower rents, which is a very worthy goal in and of itself.

Post reply on HN