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

241–250 of 1001 posts

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

#241

Post by stjohnswarts »

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…

Yeah man I was shocked here in Texas on how much crap I had to go through with the city to build a small workshop in my backyard. It was absolutely ridiculous since it was a permanent structure (stone and wood with concrete foundation). Good for California and I hope other states follow suit. Austin has two failed attempts to set up rezoning in the past 15 years or so, millions of dollars spent on the plans that ultimately failed.

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

#242

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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…

> don't want to deal with people deciding together that they want their community to have certain guidelines, move to the country

Shouldn’t this be the message to a suburban homeowner clinging to the past? Move to the country. Buy land around you. Don’t tell others what they can and cannot do on property you don’t own.

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

#244

Post by rjbwork »

RealityVoid wrote: post #226
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.

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

Maybe in theory, but functionally it is the same. You don't pay your property taxes, you get a lien, and can eventually, in extreme circumstances, be foreclosed on.

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

#245

Post by treesrule »

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?

Other people have linked good articles, but a good way to think about it is in Japan and West Virginia they have almost no homelessness and in both those places its very easy to rent a studio for under 300$ a month. Even for someone addicted to drugs you can see how its possible to manage 300$ a month (or for say a charity or city organization to come up with the money) without solving the underlying issues.

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

#246

Post by eli »

dahfizz wrote: post #43
gretch wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Some people just want to live in a small suburb

And many more would like to be able to afford a place to live

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

#247

Post by kevinburke »

danans wrote: post #123

For all of California's huge dysfunctions (which are frequently the side-effects of its huge successes), this is a good example of what the state gets right. To people who are freaked out that this is going to turn into the opening scenes from Pixar's "Up", more often than not, in suburban areas, this will just result in a few dwellings per lot, imagine 2-3 town homes on what is now a .25 acre single family lot.

The 20% affordable component of Builder's Remedy means you need to propose at least 5 homes so one of them can be affordable.

That said, a "missing middle" program is a really helpful thing to help cities get their Housing Element into compliance so if you think there is a place where this density would be helpful, send a comment to your city council and cc HousingElements@hcd.ca.gov.

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

#248

Post by rcpt »

squokko wrote: post #222

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.

If 100% of owners don't want to sell or build then nothing changes with this law.

But trying to control what your neighbors do? Sorry but property rights end at the property line.

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

#249

Post by opportune »

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.

Where does this narrative about evil greedy developers come from?

If the new housing represents a net increase in people, then the developers are filling unmet demand. It’s not that different from restricting the supply of milk and getting angry that milk producers will make more money when those restrictions are lifted. Yeah, they will, but only because there is more demand for their product than they were previously legally allowed to satisfy.

Developer margins should actually decrease when zoning is more permissive anyway. Right now in SF there is a whole cottage industry of “facilitators” and direct graft/corruption making it hard to build housing unless you know how to work the system.

While it’s absolutely true that developers can cut corners, I personally don’t see them as any more evil than any other business.

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

#250

Post by fragsworth »

singlow wrote: post #117
gretch wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A little game theory may come to play though. If the whole city booms and just my neighborhood stays single-family large lot, my price/sqft may increase drastically, and I may get better return on any improvements I do to my property based on my investment profile. If instead my neighborhood is converted to apartments or high-density condos, I might not have the capital to take advantage of those opportunities but my…

No, it's almost entirely short-sighted, at least in terms of economics.

First, I've never heard of anyone being forced to sell, unless there's some truly huge and necessary infrastructure development. You are generally offered some money by a developer and you personally decide whether or not to take it. Sometimes people can be stubborn and there are plenty of examples of large high-rises built around tiny structures that wouldn't sell.

Also, your price per square foot goes up fastest directly adjacent to the largest developments. If your neighborhood can economically support larger buildings, that directly increases the amount of money developers will pay for your land. The less development you allow your neighborhood to have, the less your neighborhood will be able to support large developments. You want your neighborhood to support large developments.

You may want to hold on to YOUR house as an investment, and to keep from a property tax re-assessment, but it makes no economic sense to prevent your neighbors from building higher if they want to.

Post reply on HN