Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 133 posts

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#31

Post by epistasis »

Schnitz wrote: post #24

[flagged]

Those SFH are already rentals, from small landlords that bought a second, then a third, then a fourth home.

The ship has already sailed on the redistribution, because 1) California created an artificial housing shortage from regulatory capture by home owners, and 2) condo defect law differs so much from SFH defect law that it's almost always insane to sell condos instead of renting apartments.

This is not the doing of SB 79, this was Boomers deciding to milk future generations and prevent them from having the same easy opportunity that they enjoyed.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#32

Post by epistasis »

TinkersW wrote: post #7

Nine stories anywhere in the state near a bus stop seems abit much, most small towns don't have anything over 2 or 3 stories(nor do they have a housing shortage). CA lawmakers seem to pass laws focused on cities, and ignore the fact that maybe this isn't such a good idea in smaller towns & rural areas.

You are spreading basic misinformation, please read the article so that you do not continue to do more of it.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#33

Post by doctorpangloss »

epistasis wrote: post #29
jimt1234 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... near transit hubs. I don't understand this narrative that California has been pushing the last few years - basically, "There's a bus stop in the neighborhood, therefore we can add a bunch of new housing without doing any other infrastructure upgrades." I just don't see it. What I do see after new housing is added is insufferable traffic and no parking - and empty buses.

You are mistaken on the basic facts of where this permits more hosing. You also do now understand people in urban areas and their desires. For example look at Seattle, which has added a lot of population, but only added 1 car per 30 new people: https://www.theurbanist.org/2025/09/07/while-seattle-populat... For a few generations, 99% of housing that was built was car dependent. That's not what the market wants. So wh…

While I wholly support density and bike everywhere myself, I don’t know if “people are getting poorer in Seattle” is the win “The Urbanist” thinks it is.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#34

Post by SilverElfin »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #26
SilverElfin wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN has one particular view, which is to keep increasing density without care for any other factor. But density does change neighborhoods and quality of life in many negative ways, including the example you shared. Someone may get to move into that area at a lower price. But someone else loses what they had. I don’t understand why those who demand lower priced housing are more valid. And too often, the response here i…

The people who want small, mid-sized towns are free to live literally anywhere they want outside major metro areas. There's 90+% of the state by land area left to them. This discussion is and has always been centered around the housing crisis in urban centers, where it's been illegal to build density for decades. This has caused issues where those urban centers can't afford for people to provide critical services ( l…

> The people who want small, mid-sized towns are free to live literally anywhere they want outside major metro areas.

This is what I was referring to, in terms of HN’s attitudes on this topic. Why should a “major metro area” change to accommodate newcomers? It should just stay serving its current residents, who may want it to stay the size it is. The ones desiring to live there at a price they can afford are the entitled ones. They could be the ones to choose to live “anywhere they want outside major metro areas”. Major metro areas also don’t just come in one size. There are larger cities and smaller ones, denser ones and less dense ones. And it is perfectly valid to want a smaller one.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#36

Post by ec109685 »

In addition to condos next to transit, California should be fixing roads, so people can move further from their job.

I know it’s unpopular nimby opinion but hoping people in these homes won’t be driving cars is misguided. Give them parking, fix roads for further commute and let people live where they want.

Save money by reducing regulations on elevator size, allow for single egress buildings and ensure we aren’t kowtowing to labor too much.

Future Waymo like technology makes driving your own car even less stressful and furthers the gap between public transit and cars.

“ California Senate Bill (SB) 79 reduces or eliminates parking minimums for new residential developments located near Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) stops”

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#37

Post by terribleperson »

mutator wrote: post #11

The discourse around high density housing does not make it clear what specific type of development do advocates prefer. Its likely that the market will have to decide for itself, but if we end up with an abundance of just 1/2 bedroom rental apartments, targeted towards transient younger people, I fear it's just going to enrich the property management class, and families with kids/older parents looking for larger plac…

An abundance of 1/2 bedroom rental apartments would reduce the price of larger places, because there would be lower demand.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#38

Post by stouset »

ec109685 wrote: post #36

In addition to condos next to transit, California should be fixing roads, so people can move further from their job. I know it’s unpopular nimby opinion but hoping people in these homes won’t be driving cars is misguided. Give them parking, fix roads for further commute and let people live where they want. Save money by reducing regulations on elevator size, allow for single egress buildings and ensure we aren’t kowt…

More roads just does not scale. Look at LA. Look at San Francisco. More capacity isn’t just going to magically appear.

Waymo is only going to increase overall utilization by reducing the marginal cost of running a car. They aren’t magic traffic-solving devices, they are traffic-adding like DoorDash and Uber have been.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#39

Post by epistasis »

doctorpangloss wrote: post #33
epistasis wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are mistaken on the basic facts of where this permits more hosing. You also do now understand people in urban areas and their desires. For example look at Seattle, which has added a lot of population, but only added 1 car per 30 new people: https://www.theurbanist.org/2025/09/07/while-seattle-populat... For a few generations, 99% of housing that was built was car dependent. That's not what the market wants. So wh…

While I wholly support density and bike everywhere myself, I don’t know if “people are getting poorer in Seattle” is the win “The Urbanist” thinks it is.

I can only guess what you mean here, but if you assume that people who don't own cars are poorer than those with cars, you are wrong and don't understand wealth.

Those who move to cities and can live without cars have far higher incomes than median, and because they are not burning the average of $700/month on a car, they accumulate wealth far faster.

If I have misunderstood your assumption, please correct me, but the "only poor people don't have cars" fallacy is the only way I can make sense of your comment, and the only people I have heard express it are deeply out of touch with the modern world.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#40

Post by chabska »

SilverElfin wrote: post #34
AlotOfReading wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people who want small, mid-sized towns are free to live literally anywhere they want outside major metro areas. There's 90+% of the state by land area left to them. This discussion is and has always been centered around the housing crisis in urban centers, where it's been illegal to build density for decades. This has caused issues where those urban centers can't afford for people to provide critical services ( l…

> The people who want small, mid-sized towns are free to live literally anywhere they want outside major metro areas. This is what I was referring to, in terms of HN’s attitudes on this topic. Why should a “major metro area” change to accommodate newcomers? It should just stay serving its current residents, who may want it to stay the size it is. The ones desiring to live there at a price they can afford are the enti…

Because "current residents" also include the children and teenagers currently living there? You act like young adults are 100% flown in by storks, as if the city doesn't itself procreate, as if school children doesn't grow up into young adults.
Post reply on HN