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

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

darrellowens.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 1001 posts

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

#361

Post by xyzelement »

I am not an expert in California but I don't love this concept in general. Here in New York, the Governor is attempting to drive higher housing density in certain places regardless of what the local people think and want.

I think this is a sort of obvious effort at a form of gerrymandering - if the assumption is that the residents of higher-density dwellings are more likely to vote Democrat on average vs the current home owners, spreading high density housing around districts (vs concentrating them in the already-super Blue cities) locks democratic control over those districts with more probability/certainty.

There are obvious concerns being raised about - traffic, ability of utilities to handle the extra density, school capacity, not to mention wishes of those (like me) who explicitly chose a suburban lifestyle for our family - when viewed through the cynical electoral lens these concerns aren't relevant to the decision which optimizes for power concentration at the expense of everything else.

No idea if the same dynamics are at play in Cali.

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

#362

Post by dang »

kris_wayton wrote: post #169

The headline makes it sound broader than it is. Rather than "CA Cities", it's actually "will eliminate the zoning ordinances of the vast majority of cities throughout the Bay Area" . Still pretty broad, of course.

Can anyone suggest an accurate, neutral title, preferably using representative language from the article, which fits within HN's 80 char limit? If so, I'll be happy to change it above.

(We usually do this ourselves, but I find the details here a bit disorienting and don't have time to concentrate on it)

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

#363

Post by fnordpiglet »

opportune wrote: post #249
nemo44x wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, people here celebrating this don't understand at all that all this does is give developers more power over communities they have no interest in but money. And of course, the politicians that they will fund/bribe to make this happen. We just went from democracy to oligarchy in this case.

Where does this narrative about evil greedy developers come from? If the new housing represents a net increase in people, then the developers are filling unmet demand. It’s not that different from restricting the supply of milk and getting angry that milk producers will make more money when those restrictions are lifted. Yeah, they will, but only because there is more demand for their product than they were previousl…

Truth is people want to live in a community of the character they choose when they moved into that community. The high density housing community seems to think everyone just needs an efficiency unit in a Soviet style housing block and anyone else is an entitled NIMBY. What the person said was developers don’t care about the community they’re building into. Loosening of community rules means they can move in start building the anti-NIMBY idealized massive communal living arcology in the on the east and west of your 100 year old Victorian neighborhood blocking the sun for 70% of the day, razing historic buildings and creating a construction zone for the next five years. Then once they’ve made everyone miserable for forever they pocket the profit and use it to buy a nice Victorian in a community with community zoning laws.

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

#364

Post by softsound »

Looking at other countries like Japan with like barely any zoning laws, this looks great, I hope it leads to more mixed cities again and more walkable/liveable areas like before WW2. It is funny that America land of the free had so many restrictions, building up hundreds of zoning laws across the country did a lot of bad and led to a lot of urban sprawl leading to very poor cities and towns that literally cannot pay for themselves. I think we need some zoning laws though, and I'm sure these laws will come back faster then people expect mostly from bad planning or large bribes whichever. But hopefully some good helpful zoning laws will stick.

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

#365

Post by flaque »

dakial1 wrote: post #268

Won't this generate a free fall in house prices in the bay area? Good opportunity for a "big short" move?

Possibly the opposite. If you own a home on a lot that previously you could only build one or two units on, but now you can build N+ units, that lot is worth a lot more.

You should expect rent to fall though, multiple studies (https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/224569/1/vfs-2020-pi... | https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/7fc2bf_ee1737c3c9d4468881bf14...) have shown that increasing rental units lowers rents.

The math of this: a lot with 1 unit, worth $1m today, becomes a lot worth $3m and 10 units on it. So the cost per unit is $300k; unit price goes down, but value for the original land owner goes up.

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

#366

Post by avereveard »

rjbwork wrote: post #193
thepasswordis wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again this is where we are getting into what it means to own something. Do I own the property or not? If my neighbors want to get together and buy my house from me because they want to do something with it, then they are by all means allowed to do so.

Nobody in the US, and indeed most of the world, "owns" their property. Try not paying your property taxes, and see where that gets you. You lease the right to usus, mostly fructus, and to some extent abusus from the state.

Even then that would mean that the state would have a voice, not the neighbors.

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

#367

Post by rcme »

raldi wrote: post #346
rcme wrote: post #279

This has the real possibility to destroy wealth and land value. I understand the desire for more housing, but you absolutely need people in the community to be making these decisions. State-level officials don't have the ability to make informed decisions on important local issues like this. Unfortunately, I have first-hand experience with this. The state decided to build a (very) small bridge over a creek in my neig…

Another way to say "this will destroy land value" is "this will lower housing prices". That's the point. But reality is more nuanced than that; the cost/value of apartments will go down, but the cost/value of single-family houses will go up, as there will be interest in buying the latter and turning it into the former. Land values will go up; rent and condo prices will go down.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. "Destroy land value" doesn't mean lower housing prices, or at least lower in a productive way. Imagine you have some land and then the city builds a dump next to the land. That destroys the value of the land because no one wants to live there anymore. Housing prices are a second-order effect based off of the land value and the availability of housing units. The new policy in California's purpose is to increase housing units, but has the potential to destroy the value of the land.

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

#368

Post by xwdv »

jedberg wrote: post #127

There is a developer in Cupertino who has been fighting with the city for years, who got awfully quiet lately. Now I know why. I suspect they have a plan for an absolutely massive high rise behind my house that they will be submitting at 8am tomorrow morning. My neighbors are going to be pissed .

Good. Fuck your neighbors. The region is long overdue for more housing to fix the ridiculous situation that has formed down there. Hopefully the region will become more affordable as new housing floods the area and brings down prices and makes things generally more affordable.

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

#369

Post by twiddling »

anovikov wrote: post #8
p0pcult wrote: post #2

This seems like a way to reduce homelessness and fix the housing market in one fell swoop.

Fixing homeless requires removing homeless, not adding homes. It's a law enforcement problem, not an economic problem.

I assume you have a FINAL solution?

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

#370

Post by bcrosby95 »

thegrimmest wrote: post #240
toast0 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cities should be able to plan their own growth. They are able to plan their own growth, but they aren't able to refuse to grow. Or at least, not through zoning; being located where potable water or sewer/septic are at capacity is probably still valid to restrict new building.

Why not? if a low density community wants to plan to remain low density, who are the rest of us to stop them?

If you want low density, you're going to pay for it by not being in the center of a major hub of civilization.

Places like Gilroy and Morgan Hill will probably be mostly left alone in this, and this will probably apply downward pressure on their housing prices, making it more affordable for people to live in low density neighborhoods, while not having a 3 hour commute from the central valley.

Obviously developers could target those cities, but they would probably start with more desirable ones first.

Post reply on HN