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

221–230 of 1001 posts

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

#221

Post by MisterBastahrd »

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?

If that were true, there wouldn't be any building in the New Orleans area more than a couple stories high. Everything south of the lake is built on an alluvial delta.

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

#222

Post by squokko »

I don't really see what's wrong with the residents of a town saying "town's full, go away." The properties in CA are expensive because it's a highly desirable place to live. There are other states with open arms welcoming new growth. I don't have a problem with either.

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

#223

Post by AdrianB1 »

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.

You will own nothing and be happy /s

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

#224

Post by bootsmann »

nlavezzo wrote: post #95
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…

> 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…

> I don't think the solution is just nuking all zoning regulations from orbit.

It has to be, because the in-group, i.e. the people already living there don't accrue the cost as that falls on the out-group, the people who need to live there (job etc) but cannot. Its the essence of a "f** you i got mine attitude"

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

#225

Post by eli »

grumple wrote: post #186
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.

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/...

[flagged]

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

#226

Post by RealityVoid »

rjbwork wrote: post #193
thepasswordis wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I feel that this is a misleading. Property taxes are not leases on property but simply a disincentive to hoarding unused land.

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

#227

Post by rcpt »

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.

Home owners, not developers, get all the profits in real estate.

https://oregoneconomicanalysis.com/2021/03/16/who-benefits-f...

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

#228

Post by fragmede »

Camillo wrote: post #199

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 dem…

And ridiculously bad sound isolation. So many neighbor problems go away if you can't hear your neighbor coughing in their bedroom from your bedroom in the dead of night.

And no in-unit washer dryer.

And no dish washing machine.

And no living room because it's been converted into a bedroom to be able to make rent.

And slow Internet that's from a provider with notoriously bad customer service.

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

#229

Post by rjbwork »

notch898a wrote: post #207
rjbwork wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

False, much of Alaska has no property tax.

Fair enough. I have looked into this before and that exception has not come up before. Let's say roughly 99.7%+ of people, then.

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

#230

Post by wrycoder »

enragedcacti wrote: post #113
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?

It goes back to the late 1800's and Early 1900's and like many legal overreaches in the US, zoning laws were primarily spawned from a desire to discriminate on the basis of race or class. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoning_in_the_United_States#Or...

WP may not be entirely evenhanded on this subject.
Post reply on HN