As someone who spent 5 years attempting to get through zoning including a purely subjective “design review committee” in one of these affluent cities, I applaud this. While I agree with the desire to preserve the character and uniqueness one’s town, that pendulum has swung so far over driven by older, established nimbies who got theirs decades ago, or their offspring who inherited both homes and excessively low prop 13 tax rates locked in decades ago. The wealth disparity this whole system has created is staggering.
Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow
271–280 of 1001 posts
Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow
#272Earlier 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"
In-group/out-group aren't great terms to use to make that point.
I and many others who don't live in the Bay Area see ourselves as an in-group relative our out-group -- the people who have to live there.
Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow
#273Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you can't built a chemical processing plant in a residential neighborhood, obviously Actually we have oil derricks in the middle of residential neighborhoods in Los Angeles.
As far as I know, pumping crude doesn't produce the same pollution and nearby collateral damage that processing chemicals does. Source: Grew up in Texas surrounded by mostly harmless pump jacks and then moved to Louisiana in Cancer Alley.
We have some refineries right up against homes in Wilmington and the bad parts of Long Beach.
In either case, the fact that zoning laws aren't stopping this but are taken as seriously as laws of physics when it comes to apartments shows that they're mostly a scam
Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow
#275Wow 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?
San Francisco is a good case study in what happens when you don't build enough housing - people who were previously able to afford cheap apartments now can't and do all of their business out in the street.
Other cities and states have worse problems with drug use but don't have problems with homelessness because housing is more affordable there.
Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow
#276[deleted]
Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow
#277Earlier 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.
That is no different from ownership of anything else, including one’s own body. The government has an interest in property and may tax it, but how is that different from auto registration, income tax, or any other tax liability? Someone can be imprisoned for daily to pay income tax, but the government doesn’t own their job or work.
Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow
#278There 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 .
Vallco?
Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow
#279This has the real possibility to destroy wealth and land value. I understand the desire for more housing, but you absolutely need people in the community to be making these decisions. State-level officials don't have the ability to make informed decisions on important local issues like this.
Unfortunately, I have first-hand experience with this. The state decided to build a (very) small bridge over a creek in my neighborhood. The purpose of the bridge was to make it easier to get to the highway. None of the residents wanted this bridge, but it was built any way. After the bridge was built, Google Maps started routing people off the highway during rush hour, creating gridlock and heavy traffic. As a result, you can't leave your house between 7-10 and 4-6. Walking on the streets is dangerous as drivers stuck in gridlock become increasingly aggressive towards pedestrians. And don't even think about trying to drive somewhere. It takes 30-45 minutes just to drive a few blocks.
The irony is that this "shortcut" doesn't save any time. Google Maps routes people from the highway into town up until traffic is so bad in town that it... takes just as much time as the highway. So the beauty of this small town was destroyed for literally no reason. Property values have begun to decline as it is no longer a desirable place to live.
Of course, prior to building the bridge, the state ran "traffic studies" that indicated there would be no impact to traffic in town. They had no incentive to really study the problem, however, as there are no consequences for them if they do a bad job.
Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Cities should be able to plan their own growth. They are able to plan their own growth, but they aren't able to refuse to grow. Or at least, not through zoning; being located where potable water or sewer/septic are at capacity is probably still valid to restrict new building.
Why not? if a low density community wants to plan to remain low density, who are the rest of us to stop them?
American citizens with the freedom of movement? If you want to remain low-density go settle where California City is, I guarantee you will stay small. Santa Monica, however, is going to have to build housing.