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

Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 329 posts

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

#301

Post by mywittyname »

Tempest1981 wrote: post #246
Eric_WVGG wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't downvote you, and I'm not offended, but I sure as hell rolled my eyes at your comment. Nobody in a city deserves their own yard. Public parks where everyone can BBQ make far more sense. Want a dog? Move to Montana, or get a housecat instead. You seem to want sprawl; cities need density.

Thanks. But what are we defining as cities? Are suburbs included? Where are suburbs allowed to remain, as we force zoning shifts to high density? The YIMBY movement is strong throughout the Penninsula, between SF to San Jose -- areas previously considered suburbs. Clearly a 5000 sq ft lot is unacceptable in SF, but where _is_ it acceptable? San Bruno? Menlo Park? Mountain View? Sunnyvale? Pleasanton? Oakland? And for…

Cities area already defined. Yes suburbs are included. They should allowed to remain as long as it's economically viable to do so.

If you're neighbors want to sell for $10MM each to a developer who wants to build an apartment, they should be allowed to. If your other neighbor wants to tear down their house and build a duplex and rent the other out, they should be allowed to. If you want to keep your dog and bbq, you should be allowed to.

The general idea is to allow people the ability to extract the wealth from their property. It's possible that they are "drinking your milkshake" by extracting wealth from surrounding properties too. But everyone was given the same opportunity.

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

#302

Post by parineum »

lukeschlather wrote: post #75
muninn_ wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But how many people are going to move there to live in a bus? I certainly wouldn't. If property values get too high I'll just not move there. I don't understand this mentality where everybody thinks they should be able to afford to live in the best cities in the country, especially in California. It's just simple supply and demand. If housing prices get too high and people can't afford to live there they will live so…

I think you both have the causality backward. Vanishingly few people are moving to California to live in a bus. People are moving to California to get better jobs, and most of them can comfortably afford to live in California. The people who are ending up in buses have lived in California since housing was cheap enough that they didn't have a problem, or since they were children. People who can't afford to live in Ca…

> The people who are ending up in buses have lived in California since housing was cheap enough that they didn't have a problem, or since they were children.

Most of the people I know who complain about the housing cost in California are young people who make considerably less money than their parents do but expect to be able to maintain the lifestyle they had growing up. That's incredibly unrealistic and I doubt that's ever been attainable unless you're exceedingly wealthy.

When my parents moved to the area I grew up in, it was not even close to the desirability that it is when I eventually moved out. I've done what they did. I bought a house further away in a less expensive neighborhood because I can't afford to live there.

The amount of young people who think they have a right to move in the opposite direction and maintain their lifestyle is strange to me. Tons of people I know moved to bigger, expensive cities out of college/high school but they had to live with 3 roommates to do so. Eventually, when you want your privacy back, you have to move away.

For most young people, you can't have your cake and eat it too when it comes to where you choose to live.

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

#303

Post by mercutio2 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #47
imbusy111 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a lot of people want to live in places that you mentioned. The really smart people will find a way to stay in California forcing all others to gather around them.

How far is it from Silicon Valley to a really good trout stream? In Boise, it's a lot closer. How about hiking in a wilderness area? Skiing? Now, true, if you want high-quality Chinese food, Boise may not be your cup of tea (pun intended). But I bet there are enough tech people who like the outdoors more than the big city to make a small-ish tech hub in someplace like Boise.

This is an odd comment. Have you ever lived in the Bay Area? Because part of what non-tech people love about it is great hiking is almost always within half an hour's drive.

The climate doesn't support skiing or trout fishing, but outdoor activities are very big here. It's a significant part of why many people stay here rather than going to NYC or Boston.

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

#304

Post by jrapdx3 »

lovich wrote: post #238
CalRobert wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like the permits are still cheaper than they should be, though. Presumably if people value the parking such that it's the best use of land an enterprising person could set up a parking garage and make a profit?

That would require the enterprising person to be able to get past the NIMBYism to construct the parking garage

That's not quite the issue. Public parking garages have been proposed but getting them sited has been difficult. One reason is competition from developers of apartments, who want to use the space for residences. Rather a dilemma to resolve as both are needed. Not exactly a NIMBY matter in that case.

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

#305

Post by jrapdx3 »

CalRobert wrote: post #229
jrapdx3 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're right. I my observation (though not in SF) the top 2 sources of dispute are 1.) parking, and 2.) dogs. Not infrequently, there's a correlation between offensive parking and promoting bad dog behavior. Of course it makes sense that would be the case. Inconsiderate people are likely not to care about encroaching on others' driveways when they or their guests leave their vehicles. They're also not likely…

Sounds like the permits are still cheaper than they should be, though. Presumably if people value the parking such that it's the best use of land an enterprising person could set up a parking garage and make a profit?

Yeah, garages is one idea, but that's a land use matter of importance re: need for residential development. Garages have been proposed, but difficult to squeeze in among the competing needs. Sometimes the conflicts are just hard to resolve with the various constituencies fighting it out.

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

#306

Post by FullMtlAlcoholc »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #283
FullMtlAlcoholc wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if stuff gets falsified on the affidavit we go after you after-the-fact That would likely lead to a solution that's actually worse than the problem. Court cases to resolve these violations will take years to adjudicate and will in most situations lead to a settlement that still fucks over those who were victimized. A better approach would be to reform our legal system so that it isn't and/or hire more court employe…

Waiting in lines and paying by spending time is what you get when you can't pay for a service by spending money. The alternative is that the poor can't afford access to the legal system. Basically, the wait is serving an important role in making court expensive in an egalitarian way.

> Basically, the wait is serving an important role in making court expensive in an egalitarian way.

But the wealthy don't wait anyway. They just hire lawyers.

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

#307

Post by eli_gottlieb »

muninn_ wrote: post #295
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither views nor neighborhoods are considered to be property under real-estate law. Basically, no. Just no. Other people do get to spend their own money on property near yours and use it as they please. That's a free economy. If you don't like it, try some form of central planning. I think feudalism might really suit you.

Ha! I'm an anarchist. But yes neighborhoods do get to control things like that and they should. Ever wonder why there are no skyscrapers in DC? Ever wonder why there are home owners associations that can dictate what colors and upkeep you do on your property? My example was extreme, but rules and controls exist for a reason. If you don't like it, then don't live there.

>Ha! I'm an anarchist.

No you're not. You believe in private property in views.

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

#308

Post by eli_gottlieb »

muninn_ wrote: post #296
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's their community they set the rules. Why have communities or governments, or even countries for that matter? Fundamentally they do the same things. Let's try changing this up. "It's my community, so I set the rules. We're seizing the means of production, and any bourgeois scum who don't want to give them up can be put against the wall and shot." Chances are you suddenly developed an objection. Maybe "we'll set t…

That's nonsense. Seizing property against somebody's will is an initiation of force and violence to deprive somebody of rightful ownership of property. That's far different than a home owners association or a neighborhood ordinance. Now you could go in and vote that ordinance out, but aside from that your analogy here is not good at all. And towns do set rules all the time. People get together, vote in legislators, a…

>That's nonsense. Seizing property against somebody's will is an initiation of force and violence to deprive somebody of rightful ownership of property.

Nobody cares about your Ayn Rand pablum anymore. Argue on morals that have any grounding at all in the real world.

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

#309

Post by makecheck »

If they want to solve housing, they need to incentivize the hell out of "permanently remote" positions.

It is insane that so many teams in such dense areas have these butt-in-chair policies that require employees to live in expensive areas and commute great distances.

Frankly, there are tons of jobs that can be done just fine from anywhere. Managers have to get over this idea that they can't keep track of people wherever they are.

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

#310

Post by CalRobert »

jrapdx3 wrote: post #305
CalRobert wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like the permits are still cheaper than they should be, though. Presumably if people value the parking such that it's the best use of land an enterprising person could set up a parking garage and make a profit?

Yeah, garages is one idea, but that's a land use matter of importance re: need for residential development. Garages have been proposed, but difficult to squeeze in among the competing needs. Sometimes the conflicts are just hard to resolve with the various constituencies fighting it out.

Well, yeah, I'll admit some bias here - I think cars are a cancer to cities that destroy them. I've never met anyone complaining about a lack of parking unless they were complaining about a lack of free parking. Of course, I think we could use that land as places for humans to sleep instead of cars, but I digress.

When presented with the true cost of driving, most people choose other modes. Driving and car ownership are ridiculously expensive once you realize how much you're paying for "free" parking (higher rent), "free" roads (higher taxes), and of course tens of thousands of dead people per year in the US alone. What we do now is largely force people to pay whether they drive or not, which of course encourages car ownership.

I mean, a helicopter would be a fun way to get to work but that doesn't mean we expect free helipads everywhere.

Post reply on HN