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

291–300 of 1001 posts

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

#291

Post by squokko »

c22 wrote: post #252
squokko wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You maintain the property to make it suitable for your needs. But if you didn't "maintain" it, nothing would actually happen to it. It would still be completely usable in 1 million years.

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

#292

Post by civilian »

fasthands9 wrote: post #141
kqr2 wrote: post #48

How would the builder's remedy work in a place like Atherton if the homeowners form a pact and refuse to sell to any developers? E.g. if Marc Andreessen ( https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/marc-andre... ) and Steph Curry ( https://therealdeal.com/2023/01/29/steph-curry-shoots-his-ni... ) form a coalition with other residents then they can effectively keep the city down zoned even if builder's remedy i…

I think that's fine. I dont think the point of this is to confiscate land that people own and build condos on it. But realistically real estate ownership is pretty disperse, even in small town called Atherton there are going to be thousands of individuals that own 1 acre plots and maybe a hundred that own larger plots. It just takes a couple people to choose to sell their land or to die.

And the average home in America is owned for what, like 5-7 years? If someone is moving out of the community, are they really going to ignore a windfall payment from a developer?

And how about estate sales? Are the out-of-state heirs going to care to who their parent's property is sold? Or are they just going to go for the top dollar?

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

#293

Post by thegrimmest »

arrosenberg wrote: post #280
thegrimmest wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

freedom of movement != freedom over the personal property of others, or freedom from binding agreements. You can walk the streets of any neighbourhood you please. Using state authority to overrule local decisions about local matters is what I'm objecting to here.

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

#294

Post by TulliusCicero »

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.

Oh no, not companies making money by producing something people want! Anything but that!

Seriously, I don't care if developers are "greedy". "Greedy" describes every business and most people!

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

#295

Post by gremlinsinc »

thegrimmest wrote: post #240
toast0 wrote: post #81

Earlier 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?

then they should enforce 1 child per family while they're at it. their kids have to live somewhere right? I live in a rural city in Utah that doesn't like building new homes yet it's a Mormon town where families are about 5 kids on average. if you want grandkids nearby then more homes need built. period.

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

#296

Post by MarkSweep »

michael1999 wrote: post #96
kqr2 wrote: post #48

How would the builder's remedy work in a place like Atherton if the homeowners form a pact and refuse to sell to any developers? E.g. if Marc Andreessen ( https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/marc-andre... ) and Steph Curry ( https://therealdeal.com/2023/01/29/steph-curry-shoots-his-ni... ) form a coalition with other residents then they can effectively keep the city down zoned even if builder's remedy i…

They can try. It only takes one defector to cash a cheque. Or bankruptcy, divorce, general orneriness ...

An example of such orneriness:

https://www.cnet.com/culture/george-lucas-to-build-affordabl...

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

#297

Post by sparky_ »

jeffbee wrote: post #213
kris_wayton wrote: post #169

The headline makes it sound broader than it is. Rather than "CA Cities", it's actually "will eliminate the zoning ordinances of the vast majority of cities throughout the Bay Area" . Still pretty broad, of course.

Yes, a common misconception. The RHNA process is conducted on a rolling calendar. SANDAG had to close their housing elements in April 2021. SCAG cities had a deadline in October 2021. ABAG cities are due today. AMBAG is not due until December 2023. Edit: RHNA: regional housing needs allocation SANDAG: San Diego Association of Governments SCAG: Southern California Association of Governments ABAG: Association of Bay Ar…

Can you expand these acronyms for those of us not familiar with the ins and outs of California real estate?

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

#298

Post by aranchelk »

mullingitover wrote: post #177
jedberg wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I understand it's about the same as building in Tokyo. With modern technology and proper materials you can build a safe building. But the residential tower currently sinking into the ground indicates that either that isn't actually true or the rules aren't being enforced.

I think it's more likely that corners were cut with the Millennium Tower, or the engineers made an error of some kind. None of the other big buildings in SF are connected to the bedrock. None of the towers in LA have supports connected to the bedrock. Heck, the Burj Khalifa isn't connected to bedrock. They all use friction piles, and these can work fine if they're done properly.

> None of the other big buildings in SF are connected to the bedrock

Absolutely not true.

Salesforce Tower, Park Tower and 181 Fremont all being examples of tall buildings in the immediate vicinity that do go to bedrock.

Whether or not friction piles are a good idea is another matter.

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

#299

Post by CalRobert »

rcme wrote: post #279

This 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 neig…

Bummer, but people aren't cars and builder's remedy shouldn't apply to bridges on public roads? You just named a good reason to ban cars nearby though.

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

#300

Post by agentwiggles »

notch898a wrote: post #145
yazaddaruvala wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever been to Mumbai? Have you been inside their newer luxury buildings? It has many issues, but the modern tall buildings in Mumbai are amazing and are the solution to many of their issues. If the US would start to build new buildings like Mumbai or Singapore more Americans would realize just what luxury and space a condo could have! Mumbai needs more walkability (through super blocks and such), better trash…

I would probably create a bridge or something over the slums. Cheap enough toll to not be much for the people living in the condos, but expensive enough those living in squalor below find it unaffordable. Then you could pretty much live your life going from middle class+ establishment to the next without having to think about the slums below. The bridge would also double as a shelter over any leaking tarp roofs below…

What a wildly dystopian idea
Post reply on HN