Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs • Hacker News Board

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#261

Post by kevin_b_er » Wed, May 10, 2017, 3:32 PM UTC

_archon_ wrote: post #250

mabbo wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you give us an affidavit saying that your plan meets the specified rules, and you get a permit to build the same day, and if stuff gets falsified on the affidavit we go after you after-the-fact". My wife used to work as an engineer approving (or demanding changes) to plans for Toronto. The biggest problem is that developers will cut every-single-corner and later plead ignorance when they build the 'wrong' (cheaper)…

This seems like the sort of behavior which can be disincentivized with steep fines. You, a developer, built a large building not to code? You have to pay to have it re-worked, and in addition you pay the local town $1000 per domicile affected per day it's delayed. Made-up example, but you get the idea.

Shell corporations can be made to funnel money around to the right people then die. As it is incredibly difficult to pierce the veil due to corporation protections being more important than human health and safety, all the "law" will find is a dead corporation with no assets. The developers will have already stripped it clean and started 10 more in the same way.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#262

Post by ABCLAW » Wed, May 10, 2017, 3:43 PM UTC

kurthr wrote: post #260

_archon_ wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like the sort of behavior which can be disincentivized with steep fines. You, a developer, built a large building not to code? You have to pay to have it re-worked, and in addition you pay the local town $1000 per domicile affected per day it's delayed. Made-up example, but you get the idea.

This sounds like the sort of disincentive (after the units are sold and the horse has left the barn) that a good lawyer can easily prevent. Just like movies & funds can make/lose money that can't be clawed back, you just build an investment that pays out on sale to be nonexistent/bankrupt when fined. Are there regulatory ways around this? Of course, but they are complex, restrict the market in other ways, and lead to…

The method for dealing with this is to require that the developer post a bond.

Bonds, however, create their own host of incentive problems.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#263

Post by dalbasal » Wed, May 10, 2017, 3:45 PM UTC

muninn_ wrote: post #166

dalbasal wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose that's what this discussion is about. Who deserves what. I don't think anyone really has suggestions that enable anyone to by a family home in Palo Alto. But, the question is do local residents deserve the right to keep out newcomers. Who has what rights (who deserves what) is not an abstract truth we discover. It’s decisions we make.

But then you're asserting that those who live in Palo Alto don't have the right to govern their community. They aren't keeping out newcomers at all, in fact, there are houses for sale in Palo Alto. For some reason people think that living in that area should be affordable. It shouldn't be. Live somewhere else.

When did I assert anything? I just framed a question.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#264

Post by g_sch » Wed, May 10, 2017, 3:49 PM UTC

> Residents might be less likely to rally against a new project, the thinking goes, if it means their new neighbors will be teachers and firefighters in addition to those receiving housing subsidies.

I suppose the implication here is that teachers and firefighters make a middle-income salary. The author is gonna freak when they find out how much housing a teacher or firefighter salary will buy you in a major US metro city real estate market.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#265

Post by Nav_Panel » Wed, May 10, 2017, 3:50 PM UTC

muninn_ wrote: post #255

Nav_Panel wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they only are responsible for the property they own and not the property/land next door? It might make financial (or even quality-of-life-related) sense for a property owner to fight against construction next door, but I can't think up any reasonable or legal justification for why a property owner should have the power to prohibit construction next door...

It's just a matter of degree. You're drawing an arbitrary line here. Nobody is prohibiting anybody from construction, they're prohibiting certain types of construction. You can build a house, it just has to follow the rules and guidelines that the community has established. It's a pretty common thing in the United States. There are historical neighborhoods for example. People pay a lot of money to live in these neigh…

> It's just a matter of degree

Indeed. Communities can collaborate to keep things the way they'd like them by leveraging local networks. One particular and exciting example of this sort of policy is Redlining[1]. Agreements such as height limits aren't as bad (and are less explicitly racist), but it's a similar sort of idea. I understand the reasons why someone would want this for their neighborhood (and in most neighborhoods throughout the USA it's not a big deal), I just think in these examples where there's extreme tension between external demand and the desires of current residents, something has to give.

> There are historical neighborhoods for example. People pay a lot of money to live in these neighborhoods. You can't just waltz in and tear down an expensive house and turn it into a property with a couple of trailers on it.

I'm not against historic neighborhoods in general. I live in NYC and am aware of multiple, but I feel that some, such as parts of the West Village, have been harmful to the city as a whole. The point of a historic neighborhood should be to preserve exceptional period architecture: for example, the Upper East Side historic district in the low/mid 60s preserves a particular style of late 1800s row houses[2]. Many parts of the West Village that are historic are preserving a bunch of shitty 1 or 2 story buildings constructed when the area was a slum in the teens and 20s, after half the neighborhood was torn down to build the IRT 7th Ave Line (i.e. the 1/2/3 train) that would be covered as 7th Ave South[3].

To use a historic neighborhood as a chance to "preserve community" is, I think, an extreme distortion of intent (although the ultimate result for many well-positioned historic areas is preserving a particular sort of extremely wealthy community).

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

2: https://ephemeralnewyork.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/east61s...

3: https://i0.wp.com/www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/201... (note the 1 story structures and general architectural hodgepodge)

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#266

Post by runamok » Wed, May 10, 2017, 3:50 PM UTC

fmboingo wrote: post #131

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #16

IMO, it's gotten bad enough in the Bay Area that local control of zoning ought to get abolished. Make a new regional zoning commission, put together some clear and consistent rules about what can be built and where, and rubber-stamp everything that meets those rules. Literal rubber-stamp here, as in "you give us an affidavit saying that your plan meets the specified rules, and you get a permit to build the same day,…

I always find it interesting to hear what people believe they deserve. In these comments you can hear the "I deserve to live in a house with my family of 4 in Palo Alto". Do you really deserve that? Says who? That would be like me showing up in NYC and saying I deserve to live in a penthouse on 5th Ave. No I don't. There is plenty of wide open space outside the Bay Area.

The bay area cities allowed lots and lots of commercial real estate but relatively little residential (apartments and homes) to be built more or less in the entire bay area. Where were those workers supposed to live?

A decent article detailing the mismatch between people coming vs. housing starts: http://www.paragon-re.com/Supply_Demand_Money_and_Demographi...

Other metro areas have balanced these competing needs much better.

A lot of the laws proposed still require any proposals to follow the existing zoning (a law championed by the governor last year is one example), etc. but just prevent a few motivated individuals from blocking growth.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#267

Post by unprepare » Wed, May 10, 2017, 3:52 PM UTC

mabbo wrote: post #233

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #16

IMO, it's gotten bad enough in the Bay Area that local control of zoning ought to get abolished. Make a new regional zoning commission, put together some clear and consistent rules about what can be built and where, and rubber-stamp everything that meets those rules. Literal rubber-stamp here, as in "you give us an affidavit saying that your plan meets the specified rules, and you get a permit to build the same day,…

> you give us an affidavit saying that your plan meets the specified rules, and you get a permit to build the same day, and if stuff gets falsified on the affidavit we go after you after-the-fact". My wife used to work as an engineer approving (or demanding changes) to plans for Toronto. The biggest problem is that developers will cut every-single-corner and later plead ignorance when they build the 'wrong' (cheaper)…

If the city/public is funding a building, i would think they are checking if it is built to code before they pay the company in full.

If its not built to code, the contractor didnt finish the job and will not be paid until the building is up to code.

If its a private investor building the building, thats on them, they shouldve hired better contractors or been more thorough in their management of their contractors

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#268

Post by dmode » Wed, May 10, 2017, 3:52 PM UTC

I am tired of NIMBY's in Bay Area and all over California. I am wondering if there is some economic analysis on the impact of NIMBY on job growth and poverty. I am convinced that at least some of the joblessness in Central Valley is due to NIMBYism in Bay Area.

Having said that, I don't believe any amount of legislation will solve the housing problem in California. The appeal for living in California extends beyond US borders and there is a large population abroad willing to move to CA.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#269

Post by almost_usual » Wed, May 10, 2017, 4:01 PM UTC

skewart wrote: post #124

flomo wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Originally from Minneapolis. Farmlands extend infinitely outwards in all directions. The real Met Council power is over the sewer pipes, which allows them to limit sprawl and set a growth boundary. Maybe things have changed, but it used to be run mostly by real-estate types who wanted "controlled growth". (that is, it was a racket.) In San Francisco, the situation is entirely different. We have a massive greenbelt su…

> which is 99% developed. Not really. There's plenty of room to build a ton more in San Francisco. Just because there's already, say, a parking lot or a Burger King with a drive-through on a block in the city doesn't mean that it wouldn't be possible to build apartments there instead. Geography and existing land use do not prevent building more housing in SF. Anti-building regulations are the only meaningful reason w…

There are tons of vacant houses in San Francisco. Most of these homes are bought in cash from outside investors who have way more wealth than your average Bay Area citizen or tech employee.

These homes aren't rented because there are too many tenant rights and it's more trouble than it's worth to the owner.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#270

Post by eli_gottlieb » Wed, May 10, 2017, 4:06 PM UTC

ChefDenominator wrote: post #230

I've been in Silicon Valley for close to 20 years, and I have been concerned about this for a long time. I want to say it was somewhere around 2010 that I began noticing a sudden increase in the number RVs I see in non-RV places, such as large parking lots and along industrial area roads. Now it seems like I hardly go anywhere and not see several RVs that are clearly out of place - they used to only be found in sidey…

There's a very simple solution here: build more housing and pay better wages in the first place, so as to avoid the awful dilemmas of French Revolution-style situations.