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

371–380 of 1001 posts

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

#371

Post by spacedcowboy »

raldi wrote: post #327
gumby wrote: post #107

This is a great article about great news (except for the first sentence calling it "A little known law" -- it's been quite contentious). Palo Alto has fought these rules and I'm glad they will be enforced. When I first moved to Palo Alto in the early 80s it had a very progressive climate: a couple of SRO buildings, lower average income than some of the neighboring towns, a lot of social support programs, and decidedl…

If you were to stop 100 people on the street and ask if they'd heard of the law, how many do you think it would be?

If I were to stop 100 people on the street and ask them if they'd heard of hedgehogs, the positive answer percentage would be depressingly low, I feel...

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

#372

Post by arcticbull »

oreoftw wrote: post #359
arcticbull wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is America, land of the free, home of the property rights. It's a weird imposition to say that I can't build exactly what I want on my property (assuming it's safe). It's a totally fair thing to say that if you want full control over what can be built adjacent to your house buy a ranch in Montana . Don't want a skyscraper in downtown SF? Buy the plot. Can't afford it? Sorry, you're getting neighbors. You shouldn…

What’s wrong with the alternative of sane zoning instead of “just buy the plot”? All people want is to live in a quiet and a nice place after all. Why someone who doesn’t even live there but has a bigger buck should decide?

> What’s wrong with the alternative of sane zoning instead of “just buy the plot”?

Honestly, this is sane zoning. The Japanese model is very effective. They saw roughly 0% growth in housing prices from 1990 to present. Housing in downtown Tokyo is affordable. You'll be hard pressed to find someone who thinks Tokyo is an abomination, it's a top-10 world city is basically every ranking.

> All people want is to live in a quiet and a nice place after all.

Some of them! Not all of them. Some of them want a place to live within an hour of work, and for them that's more important.

For those that want that they can (a) buy the land around them necessary to make that happen (b) lobby the city around them to buy the land necessary to make that happen (a 'park') or (c) move somewhere like-minded people live.

> Why someone who doesn’t even live there but has a bigger buck should decide?

Why should the person who got there first decide what other people get to do? That's not even democracy, that's just gerontocracy.

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

#373

Post by Manuel_D »

TedShiller wrote: post #305
opportune wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[flagged]

The fact that housing prices are high isn't a sign of greed: it's a sign of a constrained supply. Developers build housing, the price is set by what people are willing to pay.

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

#374

Post by outworlder »

Great.

Apparently there's nothing _preventing_ mixed-use buildings. But are there incentives?

Having residential buildings on top of commercial ones is the secret for walkability in many European cities. Grocery shops and other small businesses are usually very close to where you live.

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

#375

Post by 93po »

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…

> This has the real possibility to destroy wealth and land value

Good. Housing is way too expensive, and people who have the luxury of owning housing, especially in California, could stand to lose some small percentage of their wealth if it means we can better provide a necessary part of life to someone less wealthy.

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

#376

Post by bluGill »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #282
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> don't want to deal with people deciding together that they want their community to have certain guidelines, move to the country Shouldn’t this be the message to a suburban homeowner clinging to the past? Move to the country. Buy land around you. Don’t tell others what they can and cannot do on property you don’t own.

I mean… there's a balance, right? People should be able to mostly do what they want with their own property. At the same time, they should be able to come together to make collective decisions about their towns/cities/neighborhoods. Each of those has a bad outcome if taken to the extreme.

Sure, but we should apply 'strict scrutiny' to that. Strict scrutiny is a legal term meaning in general that isn't a right the community should have, but we will make exceptions for really bad things only. (you have free speech, but you can't just yell fire in a crowded area. There are things you cannot do on your land, but they should be very limited.

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

#377

Post by danans »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #324
kevinburke wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 20% affordable component of Builder's Remedy means you need to propose at least 5 homes so one of them can be affordable. That said, a "missing middle" program is a really helpful thing to help cities get their Housing Element into compliance so if you think there is a place where this density would be helpful, send a comment to your city council and cc HousingElements@hcd.ca.gov.

It can also be 100% affordable to moderate income although that's almost assuredly less lucrative.

Perhaps it's less lucrative, but it would still allow for increasing the housing stock without putting a 50 unit building in the midst of an existing SFH neighborhood. Developers will also need to weigh the desirability of what they build into the equation. There's quite possibly a sweet spot of desirability and affordability at 3 dwellings per lot.

As an example, I live on a multi-dwelling lot (effectively town-homes without shared walls) in a predominately SFH neighborhood. It's very high density by California standards, but it's quite desirable and not apartment-block style living.

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

#378

Post by closeparen »

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.

Cities were given the opportunity to plan their own growth. They chose not to grow, which is a choice California cannot afford.

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

#379

Post by crooked-v »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #363
opportune wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bui…

> your 100 year old Victorian neighborhood

Well, you know, it sure would be nice if people could build more of those tightly-clustered Victorians in, say, San Francisco, to continue the classic character of the city and replace ugly box houses... but zoning laws mean they can't.

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

#380

Post by darth_avocado »

nemo44x wrote: post #181
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 .

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.

And whose fault is it?
Post reply on HN