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

Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79

mnolangray.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 140 posts

Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79

#41

Post by thordenmark »

hamdingers wrote: post #3
ggm wrote: post #2

It could take up to 5 years to come into full effect, from my skim of the article. So, as revolutions in housing go, this is slow-burn. Needed, won't fix housing next month or even next year. Sometimes I wonder if a state went out and bought the input supply stocks (wood, particleboard, roofing materials) and sold them below cost at the longer base-line price, but exclusively to builders constructing homes, if they c…

The California housing crisis is a result of restrictive local policy preventing housing starts, not a shortage of materials.

onerous and overly burdensome regulations make it nye impossible to build in this state. The environmentalists have a throttle on California. That is coupled with the wealthy not wanting their home values to go down with new low cost housing built anywhere near them. These add up to skyrocketing home prices in CA.

Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79

#42

Post by epistasis »

zdragnar wrote: post #8
hamdingers wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The California housing crisis is a result of restrictive local policy preventing housing starts, not a shortage of materials.

Aren't there a lot of people in the Palisades still waiting for permits to rebuild from the fires almost a year ago? It's utterly absurd looking from the outside that officials are claiming the permits are being "fast tracked" even now.

The 2020 CZU Lightning Complex Fires destroyed thousands of homes in the Santa Cruz mountains, a "wilderness" area that has been filled with mountain homes

Many (most) have not yet had permits issued for rebuilding, most commonly because the owners can not meet, or are unwilling to meet, the standards for septic systems.

There have been decades of higher standards for all sorts of code. Nothing nearly as stringent for multifsmlt housing, a code which makes housing six times safer than single family housing. But still strict enough that four decades of no-growth policy left most people completely unaware of how hard it is to build housing.

Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79

#43

Post by Bratmon »

ddxv wrote: post #13

I think Prop79 will be good long term but it will take decades for the changes to be felt. I hope that something with a bit more immediate shows up this year as well. Relooking at prop 13 seems to be one option.

Prop 13 is a religious document in California.

You'd have more luck persuading the Catholic Church to repeal the Bible.

Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79

#44

Post by epistasis »

mothballed wrote: post #36
cd4plus wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What an incredibly weird take. Higher density cities are better in virtually any environmental metric per capita. This is widely supported

Even as measured by pollutants per breath inhaled?

That would be a health metric, not an environmental one. While brake dust is a major contributor to this, a suburb next to a freeway is going to be pretty damn bad too.

Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79

#45

Post by jitl »

troad wrote: post #16

I'm not intimately familiar with Californian zoning, but I have to say, all this talk of the 'seventh Regional Housing Needs Assessment cycle' reminded me of the Five Year Plans used in socialist countries. I wish the people of California the best of luck exceeding dwelling quotas in the upcoming seventh cycle! :P Edit: I forgot how sensitive people can be to the word 'socialism'. I am not trying imply - with all the…

It’s quite common in the affairs of humans to plan recurring work on a schedule. It’s not quite as common to vote on the schedule and how to do it, but at least California seems to be a democracy in this respect.

Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79

#46

Post by pixl97 »

smelendez wrote: post #35
pixl97 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, it was 16,000-18,000 homes that were destroyed? That's a hell of a lot when you consider that all the other new builds are still in the queue to be permitted too.

Sure! But you could treat it as an emergency and staff up. It could even be through a mutual aid system the way utilities team up to do repairs after disasters, borrowing permitting experts from other jurisdictions.

>borrowing permitting experts from other jurisdictions.

I don't think those people exist... State/City budgets have already been cut lean on this stuff and most places that aren't in the middle of a disaster are many months behind as it is.

Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79

#47

Post by mothballed »

epistasis wrote: post #44
mothballed wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even as measured by pollutants per breath inhaled?

That would be a health metric, not an environmental one. While brake dust is a major contributor to this, a suburb next to a freeway is going to be pretty damn bad too.

It's ultimately a measure of the concentrations of pollutants in the air, which I would classify as an environmental measurement although perhaps a health one too.

Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79

#48

Post by bickfordb »

wewewedxfgdf wrote: post #15

It's all just to help the property investors - the mom and pop landlords, the mega corporate landlords. "If we, your landlords, own a LOT more housing, surely you can see how that will trickle down to YOU eventually owning a house. It's obvious isn't it? Our goal as investors is to build so many houses that prices will crash and everyone will be able to afford a house to live in. That's what we deeply want for all, a…

You can invest in a REIT fund if you believe this is a good asset class. Real estate investing is not a conspiracy

Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79

#49

Post by harmmonica »

jamestimmins wrote: post #26
ddxv wrote: post #13

I think Prop79 will be good long term but it will take decades for the changes to be felt. I hope that something with a bit more immediate shows up this year as well. Relooking at prop 13 seems to be one option.

I agree with the sentiment, but sadly even in its watered down form, SB79 was the result of a brutal legislative battle over the course of years, and even then it barely passed. Getting Prop 13 overturned is about as likely as California seceding from the US. Actually, it might even be less likely than that.

I think getting Prop 13 repealed along the lines of Prop 15 (basically for investment property) may actually happen. I think the pro group is much more organized today than they were in 2020 and so it will stand a much better chance of succeeding.

That said, I fully agree with you that Prop 13 repeal for homeowners will "never" happen. The backlash would obviously be massive. But if they could keep it for homeowners and repeal it for all other types of property, including land, then that could be a major improvement because property owners would have to improve their properties to a "highest and best use" or sell it to pay the taxes.

Re: Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79

#50

Post by xmprt »

outside2344 wrote: post #9
hopelite wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are not hard things to understand or solve, it's just that the majority of people don't want to understand them or face reality and the politicians will always serve up these kinds of con artist lies to placate people. You cannot add ~60 million foreign national people to the US population in the last 25 years without severely impacting the housing situation when the USA has only built 1.1 million housing units…

I don't understand why this is a iron triangle situation. Higher density housing -- and a lot of it -- solves for all three, right? If not, why not?

It's because the triangle is missing the secret forth vertex: single family housing with a big private backyard and a lawn in the suburbs that's only accessible by car.
Post reply on HN