Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow • Hacker News Board

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

#401

Post by kevinburke » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 6:21 PM UTC

xyzelement wrote: post #361

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…

If the Governor is wildly successful your town's housing supply will grow by about 2% per year. That is not enough to do a gerrymander and it's not going to change your "suburban lifestyle."

It will let more people afford to live close to one of the world's great cities though, instead of moving to a lower opportunity area like Jacksonville.

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

#402

Post by nvrmnd » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 6:21 PM UTC

nlavezzo wrote: post #95

thepasswordis wrote: post #5

Wow that's great news! The level of bureaucratic creep that has been imposed on property owners is actually unbelievable to me. I obviously understand some regulations (you can't built a chemical processing plant in a residential neighborhood, obviously), but cities have creeped themselves into all-powerful overseers. Most cities now have the power to tell you what kind of house you can build, how you can paint it, h…

> If you don't want to deal with living near other people, move to the country. The reverse could also be said - if you don't want to deal with people deciding together that they want their community to have certain guidelines, move to the country. You can do pretty much whatever you want in rural areas without significantly impacting your neighbors. People living together in a small area do get to decide together wh…

Is this a question of jurisdiction? I mean the people living together in a slightly larger area get to decide together what they want the collective area to be like as well right? Surely local politics can be overruled when the policies start having a material effect on individuals outside of the local jurisdiction.

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

#403

Post by closeparen » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 6:21 PM UTC

xyzelement wrote: post #361

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…

The local people in every place want to live in rural towns 5 minutes from the big city. It’s built into the human psyche. The problem is it’s geometrically impossible. So it comes down to how important you think “finders keepers” is - do the people who got there first have the right to lock everyone else out forever? However justified they may be in wanting this, it’s hard to deny that the costs imposed on everyone else from being locked out of (or trying to squeeze into) the inadequate housing supplies in high-opportunity regions are massive.

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

#404

Post by fnordpiglet » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 6:21 PM UTC

xyzelement wrote: post #361

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…

Honestly that’s some pretty complex calculus. I think it has more to do with the fact there are Hoovervilles all over the west coast due to the extreme cost of housing. Being in NY I get it, you don’t really see them there. But but you should come visit the best coast and check it out - the homelessness problem is like a Great Depression scene. Literally every public open space in seattle is encamped, every road is lined with broken down RVs that folks are living in, etc. It’s gotten worse over the last 5 years to the point there’s something obviously wrong. While the insane and drug dependent are the most visible my understanding is this new wave of homeless are simply priced out of housing.

The only solution is to build more homes. It doesn’t get more complicated.

Note, these homeless already live here and are entitled to vote. Putting them in a home won’t change the demographics.

That said, I’m generally not in favor of radical housing and zoning reform. I think there are middle path solutions. But it’s not a gerrymandering induced issue, it’s an extreme homelessness induced issue.

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

#405

Post by xwdv » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 6:22 PM UTC

nostromo123 wrote: post #394

xwdv wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, f*k other people, let's cram as many souls as we can in affordable dystopian high rises... that's the spirit!

Ah dystopian high rises, I never thought about it that way. Maybe you’re right. At least the dystopian homeless encampments we currently have are always out of your line of sight.

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

#406

Post by foobarian » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 6:22 PM UTC

ketzo wrote: post #329

thegrimmest wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't think you should be blindly downvoted for this -- I think it is a totally valid question, and one that the YIMBY movement needs to find a way to answer consistently. Personally, I would say that lots of low-density communities do remain low-density. And generally, that's because people don't want to move to them. But if you're a small town in Northern California, one of the most desirable places in the world,…

It seems pretty clear cut given the focus on property rights in the States that whoever got there first does get to call the shots. There are maybe some overrides like eminent domain but it seems the only non-coercive way to change this is to get your own land and make your own rules (e.g. HOAs, incorporate towns with better rules, etc).

Besides, who's to say that these desirable places are not desirable because they are low-density? It's a chicken and egg problem.

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

#407

Post by shuckles » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 6:22 PM UTC

LynxInLA wrote: post #395

softsound wrote: post #364

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…

I'm not an expert, but I lean towards relaxing zoning laws but not getting rid of them completely. Look to Houston to see what happens when there are no zoning laws at all.

There are a myriad of ways Houston does control land use beyond zoning such as minimum parking requirements and private covenants.

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

#408

Post by omegaworks » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 6:22 PM UTC

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…

>With no constraints on construction will there be a small boom in new development, tearing down virgin forest in order to make empty developments?

Prior to these changes, so much new housing was forced into the urban-wildland interface that entire neighborhoods regularly burned in our seasonal wildfires. The hope is these rule changes will force cities that use land inefficiently to densify rather than encourage more sprawl.

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

#409

Post by rcme » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 6:22 PM UTC

TulliusCicero wrote: post #392

rcme wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not good. It doesn't make sense to destroy wealth. If you want to transfer wealth from one party (land owners) to another (renters) that's fine. The land itself has intrinsic value. It's fine to transfer that value from one party to another. But it's absolutely not fine to destroy it. Everyone is worse off. Your argument is basically that we should start salting farm land to decrease its value.

Nah, that's ridiculous and you know it. Destroying wealth because you've lowered the price of goods and make them more accessible, is not the same thing as destroying wealth by actually destroying the utility of something. If I made a super food replicator that halved the price of food permanently, that would destroy much wealth in the agricultural sector, and it would still be a good thing for humanity as a whole. T…

> If I made a super food replicator that halved the price of food permanently, that would destroy much wealth in the agricultural sector, and it would still be a good thing for humanity as a whole.

No, no wealth would be destroyed. Some of the old agricultural sector's wealth would be transferred to you. The rest would stay with the purchasers of food. Again, no wealth is destroyed when you make something more productive. In fact, your food replicator creates wealth because people get the same amount of food and have more money.

Again, I think you're getting confused by the concepts of destroying wealth and transferring wealth. In your scenario, you're transferring and creating wealth through innovation. In my anecdote, wealth was destroyed. It didn't go anywhere. It just ceased to exist.

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

#410

Post by sonar_un » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 6:22 PM UTC

andys627 wrote: post #151

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.

I intuitively agree but have learned that "Cities should be able to plan their own growth." is just too simplistic.

City planning is much too simplistic for the metropolises of California. Region planning is more apt.