Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow • Hacker News Board

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

#331

Post by TulliusCicero » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 6:04 PM UTC

jvanderbot wrote: post #6

In principle, I hate this. Cities should be able to plan their own growth. In practice, coming from CA, I am 100% onboard. It's a mess of red tape and bullshit lawsuits.

In theory cities planning their own growth sounds good. In practice it fails miserably.

I think it should really be decided at the metro area level. Since job markets exist at that level, having housing decisions there avoids the problem where a city benefits from a booming economy but refuses to provide housing to anyone participating in that economy, shoving that responsibility onto the other nearby cities.

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

#332

Post by scythe » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 6:04 PM UTC

nlavezzo wrote: post #95

thepasswordis wrote: post #5

Wow 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…

> 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…

>People living together in a small area do get to decide together what they want that area to be like within reason.

This argument ignores 100 years of research in game theory and development economics. No community is an island, okay except Alameda, but even they are a component of a wider metropolis. The way you set zoning laws and transportation infrastructure influences who comes into and passes through your community — no municipality in the core of a metropolitan area can ever truly behave like a single community organizing its residents' lifestyles.

So you see, for example, an attempt to increase the total property value per resident because it leads to a better school district. You see attempts to block new developments and transit stops because relative popularity may transiently increase the local cost of living, even if it benefits the affordability of the metro as a whole. You see militarized police departments who realize they can't outrun crime but they can certainly outrun Emeryville.

None of these are the products of a community of people democratically deciding what kind of lifestyle fits their particular interests. They are the choices of a faction jockeying for status in the desperate power struggle that characterizes the great modern balkanized American Combined Statistical Area.

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

#333

Post by whakim » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 6:05 PM UTC

AdrianB1 wrote: post #262

whakim wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that property rights are totally inviolable doesn't really hold water when you think about it a little more. Stuff like electricity, running water, trash and recycling, roads, parks, schools, public safety, the technology behind your fridge/oven/heating/AC etc. only exist because of decades or even hundreds of years of robust public investment. Without any of that, you wouldn't even have a house!

What is the relation between property rights and services? Paying for consumption versus having property rights is orthogonal.

The relationship is that private property only exists because of a system that enforces it and provides many of the services that lend it value. Whatever you think of this system, the two are deeply intertwined.

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

#334

Post by creeble » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 6:05 PM UTC

HDThoreaun wrote: post #217

rr888 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont see why new million dollar condos will help homeless at all.

20% of them are for low income only.

Below-average income, not low income.

Homeless people typically have zero income. They will qualify for exactly zero of the new housing these "unzoning" laws permit.

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

#335

Post by HDThoreaun » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 6:05 PM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #212

I loathe the suburbs and car-only infrastructure. It's backwards, bone-headed, and downright treacherously stupid. In addition to zoning reform we should nationally remove mandatory parking minimums. Hell, if anything we should de-zone strip malls and any new development that practically requires a car to get to (implementation details fuzzy). But I do have sympathy for people who move to a location or community for…

I don't see how a small minority of wealthy people voting to keep everyone else out of their community by making it prohibitively expensive is democratic.

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

#336

Post by Slighted » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 6:05 PM UTC

Hilariously, this thread has reached hundreds of comments in under an hour. Indicative of the kinds of people who use HN perhaps?

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

#337

Post by iskander » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 6:05 PM UTC

HDThoreaun wrote: post #255

iskander wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Homeless population by state is more or less a map of housing cost: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/homeless-po...

This might just be because homeless people prefer to live in the same places everyone else does though, which is why those places are expensive.

You would then expect the percent of homeless per state to be roughly similar, when it in fact varies tremendously: https://www.statista.com/statistics/727847/homelessness-rate...

NYC, HI, CA >40 per 100k homeless in 2020 (higher now)

States with lots of poverty but also extremely cheap housing at the bottom with a 5x lower rate of homelessness: LA, AL, MS

Similarly, WV very low on the list despite being high on all of the other supposedly causal factors such as mental health and drug problems

Poor people with mental health and addiction problems can still live with a roof over their head as long as they're not competing with tech salaries to buy any kind of shelter.

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

#338

Post by tinglymintyfrsh » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 6:06 PM UTC

rcpt wrote: post #168

thepasswordis wrote: post #5

Wow 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…

> 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.

Yeap. "Gasland" is a good documentary

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

#339

Post by thegrimmest » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 6:06 PM UTC

opportune wrote: post #319

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?

I see a lot of validity in this line of thought and agree with it in principle, but in practice it has led to a lot of problems in California. For one, California is split up into many smaller towns/cities in large metro areas, so each having their own policies leads to locally-optimal but regionally-suboptimal policies of trying to get as much commercial development as possible with as little residential development…

I agree with your premise. I just disagree that the use of authority is the solution here. I don't see any reason why the state needs to intervene. Just let the locally-optimal solutions (peacefully) compete and sort themselves out. Let there be winners and losers, and don't get in the way. Using authority to force cooperation is tyranny. We're not all on the same team. We're self-interested, in-group focused, animals and there's nothing wrong with that.

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

#340

Post by raldi » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 6:07 PM UTC

notyourwork wrote: post #285

Am I reading this right? > Alternatively, 100% affordable to moderate income residents where rents don’t exceed 120% area median income. If the median income is $50k, using arbitrary number for example. 120% is $60k, so rent can be $5000/monthly. Is that right?

That's a poorly-written sentence. The law requires a certain percentage of units to be set aside for households making below 120% of the AMI, with rents restricted to be affordable to such families.