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

#431

Post by nlavezzo » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 6:26 PM UTC

bootsmann wrote: post #224

nlavezzo wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> I don't think the solution is just nuking all zoning regulations from orbit. It has to be, because the in-group, i.e. the people already living there don't accrue the cost as that falls on the out-group, the people who need to live there (job etc) but cannot. Its the essence of a "f** you i got mine attitude"

To be clear, my comment was more a reaction to what I perceived as the idea that any zoning of residential areas by the community that lives there is unacceptable and that you should be able to do literally anything that's not actively endangering your neighbors. That would result in most neighborhoods being much less pleasant due to a few owners deciding to do things against the interests of the many.

I think the "community" can also extend to something as large as California. If California as a community decides it's in the best interest of that community to loosen some zoning restrictions in particularly high demand areas, fine. Do it with thoughtfulness and as much respect for existing owners' interests as possible while still accomplishing the desired objective. That's similar to a smaller community deciding to change the rules to account for some new undesirable behavior of certain community members.

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

#432

Post by steveklabnik » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 6:26 PM UTC

programmarchy wrote: post #393

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…

Another data point on lax zoning laws is Houston, which is awful and completely unwalkable. It’s not cool when someone builds a concrete plant next to your house either.

One thing that's interesting about Japanese zoning is that I wouldn't describe it as "no zoning," (for that matter I wouldn't in Houston either because that's more rhetorical than reality but anyway).

They key is that they don't do Euclidian, or exclusive zoning. You can build housing in almost every single one of their (iirc) fifteen different zoning designations.

So to US norms, this feels like "no zoning," but it's still restrictive in many ways. Just not in a way that says "only housing here" or "no housing here." (again on that last one, in the vast majority of cases, but not strictly speaking all.)

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

#433

Post by cal5k » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 6:26 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.

Median sale price in Houston is currently $310,500, vs $441,250 in Sacramento, $917,500 in LA and $1.3MM in SF.

Aesthetic judgments aside, seems like a winning strategy for housing affordability?

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

#434

Post by janosett » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 6:26 PM UTC

thegrimmest wrote: post #339

opportune wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see a lot of validity in this line of thought and agree with it in principle, but in practice it has led to a lot of problems in California. For one, California is split up into many smaller towns/cities in large metro areas, so each having their own policies leads to locally-optimal but regionally-suboptimal policies of trying to get as much commercial development as possible with as little residential development…

I agree with your premise. I just disagree that the use of authority is the solution here. I don't see any reason why the state needs to intervene. Just let the locally-optimal solutions (peacefully) compete and sort themselves out. Let there be winners and losers, and don't get in the way. Using authority to force cooperation is tyranny. We're not all on the same team. We're self-interested, in-group focused, animal…

> Using authority to force cooperation is tyranny.

Wow, this is an odd definition of tyranny. The elected representatives of the people of our state wrote these laws. I personally think it's fair for us to make laws that apply across our state rather than having full autonomy at the city level.

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

#435

Post by webkike » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 6:26 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!

High rises are not dystopian. What is dystopian is people living in fucking tents

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

#436

Post by eddsh1994 » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 6:27 PM UTC

cal5k wrote: post #433

LynxInLA wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Median sale price in Houston is currently $310,500, vs $441,250 in Sacramento, $917,500 in LA and $1.3MM in SF. Aesthetic judgments aside, seems like a winning strategy for housing affordability?

I live in Palo Alto and saw a local ad for an acre of land with no house in Atherton going for $5.2M. The housing here is really screwed.

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

#437

Post by ericmay » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 6:27 PM UTC

HDThoreaun wrote: post #335

ericmay wrote: post #212

I loathe the suburbs and car-only infrastructure. It's backwards, bone-headed, and downright treacherously stupid. In addition to zoning reform we should nationally remove mandatory parking minimums. Hell, if anything we should de-zone strip malls and any new development that practically requires a car to get to (implementation details fuzzy). But I do have sympathy for people who move to a location or community for…

I don't see how a small minority of wealthy people voting to keep everyone else out of their community by making it prohibitively expensive is democratic.

You’re looking at the specific case and not the general case, like in the 1950s when black communities in cities like Columbus were bulldozed for highways and had no recourse. Same line of argument.

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

#438

Post by CydeWeys » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 6:28 PM UTC

jldugger wrote: post #427

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 .

Interest rates are super high right now, so you might get some reprieve in the short term. They'll probably slow play Vallco until rates come down, doing just enough to keep their zoning exemption?

The reprieve in the short term would be lots of new housing built as quickly as possible, to help alleviate massively rising rents. High interest rates preventing construction of new, desperately needed housing is exactly the opposite of what we need.

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

#439

Post by km3r » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 6:28 PM UTC

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?

Because it's regulatory capture. We hate it when big corporations do it, small towns shouldn't be able to either. If they were to fairly pay for it, maybe we could talk, but when things like Prop 13 exist, it's clear they are not paying for it.

Housing near job centers is a scarce resource, we shouldn't put up with people hoarding housings anymore they we would put up with someone hoarding water during a drought.

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

#440

Post by dkhenry » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 6:28 PM UTC

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…

This is not at all true, if you wanted character to your community then the community should have approved a building plan that kept the character and allowed for more housing. As it stands these communities have said no to everything and now housing is being foisted upon them, and I say good. Too many people and families have been displaced by the absolutely absurd housing situation in California, and the failure of the people of California to address the cost of housing in their communities shows their abject dismissal of the overwhelming humanitarian toll they have inflicted on their neighbors and the environment.