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

321–329 of 329 posts

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

#321

Post by timr »

erispoe wrote: post #143
timr wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Not really. There's plenty of room to build a ton more in San Francisco." "Anti-building regulations are the only meaningful reason why the housing supply is so restricted." Prove your claim. The GP is right that there is essentially no undeveloped land in SF; a huge part of the housing moratorium debate centered on the fact that there are only a half-dozen or so vacant parcels in the Mission. This is true across th…

SF city occupies approximatively the same area as Paris, with only a third of the population. Most of Paris is developed with a 37m ceiling, hardly skyscrapers. Cost of land goes up with density, but that's the point. You build more and spread that cost among more units. Up to a point, it is economical to build higher in that situation (then for skyscrapers you start to see cost per unit going up again). Look at all…

"SF city occupies approximatively the same area as Paris, with only a third of the population."

And so? Is it affordable live in Paris? No, it is not. I just looked up rents there, and a 500sf studio will run you around $1300-$1500USD a month. Given average salaries in the area, this does not compare favorably to SF. (As a matter of fact, the city of Paris has just enacted strict rent-control laws, because rents were seen as unaffordable.)

Also, be more specific: what part of SF are you talking about? If you're talking about the 1/3rd of SF that could be characterized as "city", the density is already quite high. Increasing the density of already dense areas won't meaningfully impact rents. But meanwhile, average density numbers completely ignore that the western 2/3 of SF looks like suburbs:

https://www.google.co.jp/maps/@37.7501516,-122.4626812,3a,75...

That's in the city of San Francisco. I dropped a pin randomly in the west side of the city. You can see Sutro Tower!

When we talk about density in SF, these are the areas that matter. Building slightly higher buildings in the Mission won't move the needle, even slightly.

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

#322

Post by dragonwriter »

timr wrote: post #320
erispoe wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SF city occupies approximatively the same area as Paris, with only a third of the population. Most of Paris is developed with a 37m ceiling, hardly skyscrapers. Cost of land goes up with density, but that's the point. You build more and spread that cost among more units. Up to a point, it is economical to build higher in that situation (then for skyscrapers you start to see cost per unit going up again). Look at all…

"SF city occupies approximatively the same area as Paris, with only a third of the population." And so? Is it affordable live in Paris? No, it is not. I just looked up rents there, and a 500sf studio will run you around $1300-$1500USD a month. Given average salaries in the area, this does not compare favorably to SF. (As a matter of fact, the city of Paris has just enacted strict rent-control laws, because rents were…

> But meanwhile, average density numbers completely ignore that the western 2/3 of SF looks like suburbs

Yeah, lots of discussion treats SF as if it was the "downtown" urban core of the Bay Area, but in fact only a part of SF is that way, and a lot of SF, if still urban, not the kind of core that it is often compared to.

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

#323

Post by timr »

dragonwriter wrote: post #322
timr wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"SF city occupies approximatively the same area as Paris, with only a third of the population." And so? Is it affordable live in Paris? No, it is not. I just looked up rents there, and a 500sf studio will run you around $1300-$1500USD a month. Given average salaries in the area, this does not compare favorably to SF. (As a matter of fact, the city of Paris has just enacted strict rent-control laws, because rents were…

> But meanwhile, average density numbers completely ignore that the western 2/3 of SF looks like suburbs Yeah, lots of discussion treats SF as if it was the "downtown" urban core of the Bay Area, but in fact only a part of SF is that way, and a lot of SF, if still urban, not the kind of core that it is often compared to.

Yep. I make this point constantly on HN, and routinely get down-voted to -1. People just don't want to see data that contradicts their preferred narrative.

I'm actually not opposed to higher density or building up. I'm just pointing out that it isn't a panacea, and certainly won't work if you focus on the wrong places.

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

#324

Post by wbl »

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…

A common thing because of racism and wanting to keep poor people out. This is the city that Willie Mayes couldn't live in.

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

#325

Post by wbl »

ceejayoz wrote: post #186
wbl wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should we restrict selling homes to people abroad who will never use them? It's a wonderful export market.

Turning vibrant cities into investment property ghost towns isn't a great idea.

That's why you build even more houses.

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

#326

Post by azernik »

asveikau wrote: post #234
azernik wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They really are. At least in California. One of many ways in which local government here is fucked up.

More like a common gripe for people who don't understand the role of government or the fungibility of money. My first political season spent in California I was shocked at how in the discourse some people used the phrase "general fund" as shorthand for political wrongdoing without any further elaboration. Ok, they pool the money, so what? If they spend the money for something else, we the people are still receiving g…

Oh I didn't mean that this phenomenon addresses the fucked-up-ness; I meant that allocating specific taxes to specific programs is no way to run a government.

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

#327

Post by rebootthesystem »

matt4077 wrote: post #163
rebootthesystem wrote: post #20

Rule number one of using acronyms: Do not assume everyone knows what they mean. NIMBY: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY

Rule number two: Right-click and choose "Look up" on any word you don't know.

Oh, I know what it means. That was a public service.

Acronym soup can be maddening. Sure, one can look up every acronym but this can reach the point of jarring the reader out of a story. It is often a better idea to help the reader retain the desired mental state by taking a second to clarify acronyms.

Anyone who's read legal documents know just how easy it is to do this. The first time you use the acronym you define it, just like this (JLT). Any time after that the reader knows what it means without having to run a separate search and change mental states, JLT.

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

#328

Post by mathperson »

Eric_WVGG wrote: post #187
mathperson wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is it 100 a year? that seems quite affordable to me even if someone is making 8 dollars an hour.

It's not, though. I once observed that a few of my college-aged friends were subsisting on canned tomatoes and beans, and struggling to make ends meet. I suggested that they use my Costco membership to buy a months worth of supplies at once for roughly half to two-thirds or what they were spending. They patiently explained to me that part of why they lived this way was because they were already barely living within t…

interesting. thank you.

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

#329

Post by mathperson »

robk wrote: post #148
mathperson wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is it 100 a year? that seems quite affordable to me even if someone is making 8 dollars an hour.

Wanna try cleaning toilets yourself for 12 hours for free? Happy to have you over my house in that case!

that is a good way to contextualize the value 96 dollars.
Post reply on HN