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

Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 373 posts

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#351

Post by closeparen »

dheera wrote: post #200
Lammy wrote: post #196

Relevant: https://fiftythree.studio/blogs/news/lets-talk-about-why-la-... "The small apartment buildings that triggered this revolt are called are called 'dingbats'. They're those boxy buildings you see all over the place with pompous names like 'La Traviata' or 'Chateau Antoinette'. These kinds of housing weren't pretty, but they were no-frills apartments you could afford if you were an actor, or a grocery clerk, or…

From TFA > But while the movement to allow multifamily buildings in zones previously limited to single-family homes How is this even a thing? Couldn't two families just define themselves as a big extended family? They could for example just have two people marry for a day, move into the upstairs and downstairs respectively, and then get divorced the next day to hack the system.

“Single family” is a property of the building, not the people living in it. A multi-family building has separately locking units with their own kitchens. Where there are too many large houses and not enough apartments, many of the houses end up with would-be apartment dwellers living communally.

You do sometimes here about communities trying to enforce prohibitions on unrelated people living together in single family homes, but where the zoning itself is almost universal in America, such enforcement is very rare.

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#352

Post by jnwatson »

rsync wrote: post #148
jnwatson wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has worked pretty well for Houston. Houston is as close to free market as you can get. It helps that much of what people call Houston isn't actually in any city boundary.

Genuinely curious as to how much time you have lived or worked in Houston ? I found many pieces of it - some of which were directly related to lack of zoning - to be aesthetic disasters . There seems to be a conception that support of zoning, and things like it, need be grounded in some scientific public-good maximalism that probably doesn't exist. I don't feel bound by that at all. The reason I am against ad-hoc liq…

I grew up in Houston.

The general idea is that city planners prioritize aesthetics over their residents being able to afford housing.

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#353

Post by wernercd »

frumper wrote: post #324
wernercd wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You disagree but it sounds like you make the same points. The post you reply too says "we need minimal zoning". You say "its hard to work because of too many restrictions". Am I reading it wrong, but you disagree but seem to agree on the main points: Government needs to get out of the way to allow progress.

He’s saying entrenched developers like the restrictions because they can navigate them better than newcomers. With a lot of red tape it’s easier to make the most money if you’re good at dealing with red tape instead of being the best developer.

I understand that: He's saying the same thing as the previous guy. More red tape = bad. Just for different reasons.

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#354

Post by ta2164 »

cheriot wrote: post #340
ta2164 wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You're pretending that explicit racism is the only form of racism. I'm not pretending, racism is racism, you don't get to redefine what words mean in order to fit your narrative. Suburbs are de facto and de jure not racist . >Modern zoning was invented precisely because the Supreme Court outlawed explicit racial zoning. This is not entirely true. Zoning laws in LA and NYC predate explicit racial zoning, and survived…

> I'm not pretending, racism is racism, you don't get to redefine what words mean in order to fit your narrative. I’m done arguing with a throwaway account if you’re going to be intentionally naive. “It’s not racist because it doesn’t specifically talk about race” is logical cowardice. The rest of your comment is similarly tortured. That some POC succeed despite racism does not mean racism doesn’t exist.

>I’m done arguing with a throwaway account if you’re going to be intentionally naive.

Don't interpret logical reality as naivete. I know it's in style on the left to do this in 2021, but stop.

>“It’s not racist because it doesn’t specifically talk about race” is logical cowardice.

It's logical fact. If it doesn't specifically discriminate against race, a characteristic of race, etc., the law is by definition logically not racist.

The existence of inequity does not prove the existence of inequality.

>The rest of your comment is similarly tortured.

Similarly factual and logical, yes.

>That some POC succeed despite racism does not mean racism doesn’t exist.

Similarly, that some POC don't succeed despite the laws not being racist does not mean racism exists.

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#355

Post by KingMachiavelli »

watwut wrote: post #213
KingMachiavelli wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but they could move almost literally anywhere else. If someone said you could live in one of the most desirable places in the entire world on an 'ordinary' job but you had to share a room (which TBH could just be your significant other anyway) that would seem like a great deal right?

No, living with partner is not the same as living with roomate and 3 flatmates. The two are actually massively different.

I'm not saying they are the same or always the case. I'm just saying that is someone is already going to live with a partner, then it isn't a big deal to share a house with another couple.

i.e There is pressure for people living in that area or moving into that area to find a SO or something similar.

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#356

Post by KingMachiavelli »

jacobolus wrote: post #246
KingMachiavelli wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but they could move almost literally anywhere else. If someone said you could live in one of the most desirable places in the entire world on an 'ordinary' job but you had to share a room (which TBH could just be your significant other anyway) that would seem like a great deal right?

A city cannot function without sanitation workers, plumbers, carpenters, electricians, house painters, road maintenance workers, teachers, librarians, gardeners, bus drivers, janitors, delivery drivers, taxi drivers, shop clerks, wholesale merchants, mechanics, cooks, firefighters, paramedics, accountants, bank tellers, municipal bureaucrats, musicians, bartenders, ... When many categories of essential workers start…

True. Ideally we would have road tolls and congestion pricing to prevent this. With sufficient tolls, something else would have to give whether that's wages or housing.

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#357

Post by ta2165 »

cheriot wrote: post #340
ta2164 wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You're pretending that explicit racism is the only form of racism. I'm not pretending, racism is racism, you don't get to redefine what words mean in order to fit your narrative. Suburbs are de facto and de jure not racist . >Modern zoning was invented precisely because the Supreme Court outlawed explicit racial zoning. This is not entirely true. Zoning laws in LA and NYC predate explicit racial zoning, and survived…

> I'm not pretending, racism is racism, you don't get to redefine what words mean in order to fit your narrative. I’m done arguing with a throwaway account if you’re going to be intentionally naive. “It’s not racist because it doesn’t specifically talk about race” is logical cowardice. The rest of your comment is similarly tortured. That some POC succeed despite racism does not mean racism doesn’t exist.

>I’m done arguing with a throwaway account if you’re going to be intentionally naive.

Don't interpret logical reality as counter-narrative naivete. I know it's in style to do this in 2021.

>“It’s not racist because it doesn’t specifically talk about race” is logical cowardice.

It's logical fact. If it doesn't specifically discriminate against race, a characteristic of race, etc., the law is by definition logically not racist.

The existence of inequity does not prove the existence of inequality.

>The rest of your comment is similarly tortured.

Similarly factual and logical, yes.

>That some POC succeed despite racism does not mean racism doesn’t exist.

Similarly, that some POC don't succeed despite the laws not being racist does not mean racism exists.

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#358

Post by [deleted] »

dillondoyle wrote: post #346
ta2164 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you have nothing. "Marijuana" is not a law. Please point to a specific law that is racist, please link to the actual statutes/text.

Federal marijuana prohibition and the War on Drugs (yes including laws) is rooted in racial bias. There are a HUGE amount of sources and you aren't acting in good faith so this is pointless. Some links below. You might argue that the context around why these laws, for instance why there are specifically sentencing disparities written into law, doesn't matter because the plain text doesn't say black people shall have…

[deleted]

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#359

Post by [deleted] »

dillondoyle wrote: post #347
ta2164 wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't get to magically redefine what "racist" is because the current definition doesn't match up with your narrative. Suburbs are de facto and de jure not racist. No one is stopping any race of people from moving to the suburbs, no law is stopping any members of any race from moving to the suburbs, etc. You can definitely make the claim that suburbs are classist, but racist? No.

Seriously? If this was reddit i'd say fck off. That's not what I was saying. I'm pointing out that you for instance, could benefit from some perspective in understanding why there is disagreement between because we fundamentally have different word-views / disagree on the language of this argument. It's like trying to argue about bikes, if your definition of bike is a self powered two wheel and mine is a motorized ma…

[deleted]

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#360

Post by [deleted] »

dillondoyle wrote: post #346
ta2164 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you have nothing. "Marijuana" is not a law. Please point to a specific law that is racist, please link to the actual statutes/text.

Federal marijuana prohibition and the War on Drugs (yes including laws) is rooted in racial bias. There are a HUGE amount of sources and you aren't acting in good faith so this is pointless. Some links below. You might argue that the context around why these laws, for instance why there are specifically sentencing disparities written into law, doesn't matter because the plain text doesn't say black people shall have…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN