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

211–220 of 1001 posts

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

#211

Post by timerol »

whimsicalism wrote: post #94
m00x wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Homelessness is mostly due to lack of housing, and fentanyl crisis mostly due to addiction. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2356643-we-can-reduce-h...

Stats like these are only true because the general public and policymakers/NGOs mean completely different populations of people when discussing "the homeless." Private market housing in SF will not get most of the very visible & mentally ill off of the streets, this likely requires services and some level of compulsion.

Note that homelessness is a constant flow of people. The services and compulsion removing people from the streets is currently happening. The problem is that the housing market is dumping more new homeless onto the street than our current system can handle. Turning off the faucet, so to speak, will make dealing with the existing homeless population a much simpler and more humane activity.

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

#212

Post by ericmay »

I loathe the suburbs and car-only infrastructure. It's backwards, bone-headed, and downright treacherously stupid. In addition to zoning reform we should nationally remove mandatory parking minimums. Hell, if anything we should de-zone strip malls and any new development that practically requires a car to get to (implementation details fuzzy).

But I do have sympathy for people who move to a location or community for the aspects of that location or community and want to preserve that. It's immature to not consider that. We're also essentially just setting goal posts for what development is ok or not ok and I do think this will give further rise to private developments and incorporations that can't legally be challenged here - i.e. more gated communities.

There is real harm done, and it is anti-democratic in some ways to take state or national laws and have those supercede (micromanage in this case) local building rules or regulations. For example, where I live you have to go through local neighborhood zoning review to do things like change your door or even tear down or modify your home. We live in a historic neighborhood. Previously the government in the 60s or so wanted to tear it down and build a highway through it. In this case, the local community stopped the government from imposing a monumentally stupid new construction which would have "increased GDP" and whatever other simplistic bullshit economic metrics people use.

Certainly with that being said this doesn't also blanket excuse local entities from being "anti-development", but we probably shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. If a community neighborhood is walkable and charming with cute little shops and maybe mountains nearby or a university, guess what? It's just expensive. Develop somewhere else. Otherwise when a big corporation or the governments wants to come through and "increase land value" you will just have to do what they say with no recourse.

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

#213

Post by jeffbee »

kris_wayton wrote: post #169

The headline makes it sound broader than it is. Rather than "CA Cities", it's actually "will eliminate the zoning ordinances of the vast majority of cities throughout the Bay Area" . Still pretty broad, of course.

Yes, a common misconception. The RHNA process is conducted on a rolling calendar. SANDAG had to close their housing elements in April 2021. SCAG cities had a deadline in October 2021. ABAG cities are due today. AMBAG is not due until December 2023.

Edit:

  RHNA: regional housing needs allocation
  SANDAG: San Diego Association of Governments
  SCAG: Southern California Association of Governments
  ABAG: Association of Bay Area Governments
  AMBAG: Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments

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

#214

Post by squokko »

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.

No, you don't own the property. Under what coherent system of thought could you possibly own something that was there before humans existed and will be there after humans are gone, and which you did nothing to create or maintain? Property ownership is a societal construct that we agree to use to improve our lives together. If it's not serving our needs we can change it.

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

#215

Post by jdmtheNth »

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…

And when your street starts looking like San Francisco? You just abandon ship after encouraging this nonsense?

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

#216

Post by LargeWu »

kqr2 wrote: post #157
michael1999 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can try. It only takes one defector to cash a cheque. Or bankruptcy, divorce, general orneriness ...

Putting on the red team NIMBY hat, could they try and use private deed restrictions ( https://www.carealtytraining.com/blogs/deed-restrictions-wha... ) ? E.g. reuse the same mechanism that the city plans to use: "proposed building are deed-restricted to low income residents who make at or less than 80% the area median income." This "hack" is apparently used in famous "no zoning" Houston to keep exclusive neighborhood…

That would only work if the state allowed those deed restrictions to stand, which it likely wouldn't. Just because Houston allows such a clause doesn't mean California would.

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

#217

Post by HDThoreaun »

rr888 wrote: post #156
causi wrote: post #83

I get not wanting to suddenly put an extra five hundred families onto a road that was only designed for a hundred single-family dwellings. What I don't get is being so nimby that you'd rather have your streets utterly full of homeless people and human waste.

I dont see why new million dollar condos will help homeless at all.

20% of them are for low income only.

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

#218

Post by [deleted] »

nine_k wrote: post #93
thepasswordis wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes, society probably won't crumble if we cave to your whining and regulate your pet issue of the minute I disagree, and I think this sort of nonsense is a cornerstone of why society is crumbling. People don't look at their homes as homes they look at them as temporary investments that they hope to sell to somebody else for more money in the future. People don't end up investing (in the societal, emotional sense) in…

If housing ceases to be a relatively safe investment vehicle, what will become it? I dislike the idea of home-as-investment as much as the next guy, but I'd like to think about some consequences of houses stopping to be an investment, Japan-style.

[deleted]

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

#219

Post by rbetts »

jxramos wrote: post #35

> The city councils and zoning boards had zero authority to deny the projects. Zero. How did this authority come to be in the first place? How did cities magically get this authority to dictate how people should build. I imagine such laws didn’t always exist, how far back does this stuff go? Likewise how did states get authority over the cities on local matters that have to be obeyed?

In one case, because 2.3M gallons of warm molasses flooded a neighborhood and horribly killed people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Molasses_Flood.
Post reply on HN