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

California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 133 posts

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#41

Post by AlotOfReading »

SilverElfin wrote: post #34
AlotOfReading wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people who want small, mid-sized towns are free to live literally anywhere they want outside major metro areas. There's 90+% of the state by land area left to them. This discussion is and has always been centered around the housing crisis in urban centers, where it's been illegal to build density for decades. This has caused issues where those urban centers can't afford for people to provide critical services ( l…

> The people who want small, mid-sized towns are free to live literally anywhere they want outside major metro areas. This is what I was referring to, in terms of HN’s attitudes on this topic. Why should a “major metro area” change to accommodate newcomers? It should just stay serving its current residents, who may want it to stay the size it is. The ones desiring to live there at a price they can afford are the enti…

As I explained in the previous post, it causes issues because it results in people who would otherwise fill jobs providing critical services to the community like teaching either moving to cheaper areas or switching careers entirely. This article mentions several of the cities impacted by SB 79:

https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/teachers-str...

Are you arguing that large urban areas shouldn't have schools and vet offices? Because that's where we've been heading absent meaningful housing reform.

Normally, this situation would result in wages rising, but there's a few issues.

1) The scale of the shortage is so severe that demand far outstrips supply, which means price-based solutions simply result in high wage earners taking all of the available supply.

2) Prices are rising faster than wages.

3) These industries don't have the cost basis to compete with high wage earners. Are you happy with your local vet prices? Are you willing to triple or quadruple the education taxes you currently pay?

4) Even adjusted wages still cause fewer people to enter these industries from other parts of the US, or switch into more lucrative careers. That's socially problematic.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#42

Post by fooker »

stouset wrote: post #38
ec109685 wrote: post #36

In addition to condos next to transit, California should be fixing roads, so people can move further from their job. I know it’s unpopular nimby opinion but hoping people in these homes won’t be driving cars is misguided. Give them parking, fix roads for further commute and let people live where they want. Save money by reducing regulations on elevator size, allow for single egress buildings and ensure we aren’t kowt…

More roads just does not scale. Look at LA. Look at San Francisco. More capacity isn’t just going to magically appear. Waymo is only going to increase overall utilization by reducing the marginal cost of running a car. They aren’t magic traffic-solving devices, they are traffic- adding like DoorDash and Uber have been.

It doesn't matter what you think scales.

If you don't design infrastructure based on what people want, they are going to do it anyway. And things will be extremely chaotic.

No amount of fees, fines, etc will change that.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#43

Post by baron816 »

ec109685 wrote: post #36

In addition to condos next to transit, California should be fixing roads, so people can move further from their job. I know it’s unpopular nimby opinion but hoping people in these homes won’t be driving cars is misguided. Give them parking, fix roads for further commute and let people live where they want. Save money by reducing regulations on elevator size, allow for single egress buildings and ensure we aren’t kowt…

Robotaxis are good, but everyone owning a driverless car is bad.

Imagine you get to your destination, there’s no parking (or no free parking), so you tell your car to just circle the block while you’re inside. You spend an hour there at the tanning salon, and the car has just been circling, using the street as a parking lot and creating congestion. What happens when everyone does that?

I’m a big proponent of driverless cars, but we will need laws that ban individual private ownership. We’re going to have to experience the tragedy of the commons first because people really won’t want to give up their cars.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#44

Post by davidw »

xrd wrote: post #35

This happened in Oregon a few years ago: any cities with 25k or more people had to permit greater density. I'm optimistic about housing on the West Coast for the first time in a long, long time. This will transform things in a big way.

Oregon - thanks to governor Tina Kotek - pushed those reforms further this year:

https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2025/07/29/gov-kotek-sign...

I got to play a small part in that, going to Salem to say my piece in favor:

https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2025/03/04/oregon-gov-kot...

She liked my hoodie!

https://bsky.app/profile/tinakotek.bsky.social/post/3lkea36k...

That said, what her bills have accomplished is a bit different than CA: rather than larger buildings close to transit, we legalized 4-plexes and a variety of other housing types that use land more efficiently, throughout cities.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#45

Post by doctorpangloss »

epistasis wrote: post #39
doctorpangloss wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I wholly support density and bike everywhere myself, I don’t know if “people are getting poorer in Seattle” is the win “The Urbanist” thinks it is.

I can only guess what you mean here, but if you assume that people who don't own cars are poorer than those with cars, you are wrong and don't understand wealth. Those who move to cities and can live without cars have far higher incomes than median, and because they are not burning the average of $700/month on a car, they accumulate wealth far faster. If I have misunderstood your assumption, please correct me, but th…

Seattle median income growth is the lowest it has ever been in the last three years, since 2022, in low single digits compared to its past high-to-double-digit growth since 2013. In a completely positivist sense, it would be really improbable for that to occur and also for reduced car ownership to be associated with greater wealth. Of course, reduced car ownership is pretty much associated with lower wealth everywhere in the world, like with pretty much owning anything, like homes or expensive degrees or whatever.

There are a FEW things that decline with greater wealth, like number of children, that buck intuition, but it’s not super clear what the cause and effect is. Suffice it to say, if what you were saying is true, which is improbable - I’m not saying impossible, just really improbable - we would be talking about it way more.

Now why you have to go and call me out of touch and all these big harrowing names, I don’t know. I’m just trying to talk about what is likely to be occurring. People make less money and cars are more expensive so fewer people own cars: that shouldn’t be a controversial POV.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#46

Post by floxy »

chabska wrote: post #40
SilverElfin wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The people who want small, mid-sized towns are free to live literally anywhere they want outside major metro areas. This is what I was referring to, in terms of HN’s attitudes on this topic. Why should a “major metro area” change to accommodate newcomers? It should just stay serving its current residents, who may want it to stay the size it is. The ones desiring to live there at a price they can afford are the enti…

Because "current residents" also include the children and teenagers currently living there? You act like young adults are 100% flown in by storks, as if the city doesn't itself procreate, as if school children doesn't grow up into young adults.

Any good sources showing how much various cities' fertility rate contributes to their population growth?

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#47

Post by stouset »

fooker wrote: post #42
stouset wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More roads just does not scale. Look at LA. Look at San Francisco. More capacity isn’t just going to magically appear. Waymo is only going to increase overall utilization by reducing the marginal cost of running a car. They aren’t magic traffic-solving devices, they are traffic- adding like DoorDash and Uber have been.

It doesn't matter what you think scales. If you don't design infrastructure based on what people want, they are going to do it anyway. And things will be extremely chaotic. No amount of fees, fines, etc will change that.

If you design infrastructure based on what you think people want instead of what actually produces good outcomes, you end up with gridlock.

Travel some time. Take a look at what’s happened in Paris over the last several years. See what’s happened in Utrecht and Amsterdam. These are far from the only examples.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#48

Post by dmoy »

xrd wrote: post #35

This happened in Oregon a few years ago: any cities with 25k or more people had to permit greater density. I'm optimistic about housing on the West Coast for the first time in a long, long time. This will transform things in a big way.

It happened in WA two years ago as well, but Seattle dragged its feet as long as humanly possible in implementing a compliant zoning policy.

https://www.theurbanist.org/2025/05/27/seattle-just-rezoned-...

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#49

Post by jjav »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #26
SilverElfin wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN has one particular view, which is to keep increasing density without care for any other factor. But density does change neighborhoods and quality of life in many negative ways, including the example you shared. Someone may get to move into that area at a lower price. But someone else loses what they had. I don’t understand why those who demand lower priced housing are more valid. And too often, the response here i…

The people who want small, mid-sized towns are free to live literally anywhere they want outside major metro areas. There's 90+% of the state by land area left to them. This discussion is and has always been centered around the housing crisis in urban centers, where it's been illegal to build density for decades. This has caused issues where those urban centers can't afford for people to provide critical services ( l…

> The people who want small, mid-sized towns are free to live literally anywhere they want outside major metro areas. There's 90+% of the state by land area left to them.

Whether good or bad, it's important to realize this is not true in California, with regard to these laws. They apply everywhere, not only in urban centers.

So if there are people who want small towns without dense development, that option has been taken away entirely.

I live in a tiny town (population < 10K) surrounded by forest, far from any urban center. An d even here some of the wooded areas are being clearcut to build dense apartments due to these laws.

Re: California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing

#50

Post by 1659447091 »

ec109685 wrote: post #36

In addition to condos next to transit, California should be fixing roads, so people can move further from their job. I know it’s unpopular nimby opinion but hoping people in these homes won’t be driving cars is misguided. Give them parking, fix roads for further commute and let people live where they want. Save money by reducing regulations on elevator size, allow for single egress buildings and ensure we aren’t kowt…

> furthers the gap between public transit and cars.

It doesn't have to. If Waymo (and other autonomous taxis) were clever -- and maybe they are -- they would spend their lobbing money on high speed trains and then capture the "last mile" market.

Some years ago I was riding with a friend north on the 15 (San Diego, after a decade+ absences) and my noticeable wtf face prompted a "yeah, they built a freeway in the center of the freeway". It's an abomination. When I was there, I-15 was generally for the longer drives. My friends that lived in Temecula/North County etc would spend hours of their life driving (or slowly rolling) into SD for school/work/play.

A high speed train would have fit where they put the supplemental freeway. Now there is no more room to expand once they need more capacity; extra trains or cars could be added to a train to solve the same thing and placed along the freeway there is minimal to no neighborhood inconvenience. Then companies like waymo can take people to their final destination.

Post reply on HN