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

251–260 of 1001 posts

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

#251

Post by macspoofing »

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…

>If the people decide together to change it though, they can.

And they did. The decision by the people was to "nuke" current zoning regulations.

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

#252

Post by c22 »

squokko wrote: post #214
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.

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.

I don't know how it works where you live but I spend an insane amount of my time maintaining my property.

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

#253

Post by notch898a »

bootsmann wrote: post #224
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…

> 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"

Same thing with building codes. Make them more onerous to increase construction costs. Then lol all the way to the bank when you grandfather your own house in, increasing your own property value as it is now impossible to build a house as economically as your own. Sprinkle in some "think of the safety of the children" for good measure, no matter the fact your own house is justified as safe enough to stand.

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

#254

Post by bwestergard »

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 I own the property, then it's mine."

I'm assuming you are U.S. citizen and not super familiar with the common law; apologies up front if that isn't the case.

Property law principles in the common law are vastly more complicated than this. There are all sorts of ways that your right to use real estate as you wish can be affected by past practices, hazy conventions, etc. Check out "easements", "mineral rights", "air rights", "adverse possession", and the sometimes elaborate processes of establishing title and specific property interests in particular jurisdictions.

And many of those limitations are logically prior to U.S. specific legislation around zoning, restrictive covenants, etc.

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

#255

Post by HDThoreaun »

iskander wrote: post #148
LewisVerstappen wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> reduce homelessness Is the homeless problem due to the cost of housing? Or is it moreso due to fentanyl?

Homeless population by state is more or less a map of housing cost: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/homeless-po...

This might just be because homeless people prefer to live in the same places everyone else does though, which is why those places are expensive.

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

#256

Post by gorbypark »

nemo44x wrote: post #173
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…

Actually it strips power away from the people making us less democratic. What will happen is developers with political connection/money to get their people elected, will have fewer barriers to their profits now. This is a transfer of power from the people, that is democracy, to the oligarchy. > I don't care what effect this has on my neighbors property value. That is such an awful attitude and a big problem of what i…

I'm always of the mind that it's harder for developers to have connections at a state level compared to a local level. It's more believable that a local developer has connections to city council in a single city and the amount of palms to grease is much less. Moving up to state level (especially in CA) the amount of money / influence would greatly increase to be able to influence the new zoning regulators. Not saying it can't happen, but it would be more of an undertaking (imo).

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

#257

Post by kevinburke »

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.

This attitude has led to pretty much everyone I grew up with not being able to afford to live anywhere near where they grew up (or their parents), as well as rising homelessness, declining school population, and an inability to hire teachers, bus drivers or city staff. Also a strong case it is choking innovation in one of the most creative areas in human history.

If you don't build then as people get richer they buy second homes, put homes on Zillow, merge lots into one and your population gradually thins out.

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

#259

Post by ericmay »

LargeWu wrote: post #239
ericmay wrote: post #212

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…

Cities can in fact maintain zoning powers if they can prove that their zoning regulations are equitable. Protection of a historic neighborhood could theoretically be allowed, but must be balanced with other interests.

Yea but that's just "who knows" which is no more right or wrong than local residents deciding that something should or should not be.

Easy example: we are going to put a highway through this historically black neighborhood because the interests of the residents must be balanced with the economic interests of the state and the jobs created by new highway construction.

And now we have lost those neighborhoods and we're dependent on cars.

Post reply on HN