Live data from Hacker News

Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

citylab.com

51–60 of 329 posts

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#51

Maybe the answer is to stop growing and let other parts of the country grow. The brain drain to SV has been disastrous for other communities. It's contributed to inequality and deep geographic/political polarization. Yes, you can downvote me but consider formulating a counter-argument.

The obvious counterargument is that the Bay Area has been trying exactly what you propose for years, and the result has been a crisis instead of a shifting of gravity to other locations.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't you need to grow more food supporting the growing in-population though?

You can be sure California exports a ton of its food.

I feel like I can also be sure the export isn't really going to drop much with people coming in, but the domestic usage will rise if you keep letting people in. So the mere fact that we export doesn't really seem to help things.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#53
post #31

IMO, it's gotten bad enough in the Bay Area that local control of zoning ought to get abolished. Make a new regional zoning commission, put together some clear and consistent rules about what can be built and where, and rubber-stamp everything that meets those rules. Literal rubber-stamp here, as in "you give us an affidavit saying that your plan meets the specified rules, and you get a permit to build the same day,…

I couldn't agree more. I'm originally from the Twin Cities and we solved (parts of this) problem years ago with a regional government called the Metropolitan Council. When you have a metropolitan area that spans multiple local governments, coordinating efforts around transportation, development, and environment is critical. And coordination is difficult without some sort of central authority. https://en.wikipedia.org…

This is exactly what we lack in Atlanta, which, as you probably know, is notorious for its decentralisation and far-reaching sprawl. As a result, everything that's done in the Atlanta metro area suffers from narrow incorporated municipality focus and a total lack of regional-scale goals.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#54
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only ~10% of California's water use is residential/urban (varies a little bit year to year) [0]. The majority of non-environmental water is used to grow cash crops in the central valley, like almonds, which take 1 gal/almond. Overall, urban residents have far less impact on climate than exurban residents who drive around in SUVs. It is in the best interests of everyone on planet Earth to make our cities denser and mo…

One gallon per almond? But... one gallon of bottled water is more than a dollar. I know there's packaging and transportation, but there's packaging and transportation for the almonds, too. And almonds are not one dollar per almond. Do the almond growers receive subsidized water? I don't know how else the economics of this works out. (Unless the water used to grow almonds isn't up to the purity standards of drinking w…

> But... one gallon of bottled water is more than a dollar.

A gallon of tap water isn't, and a gallon of agricultural well water is even cheaper.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#55

Maybe the answer is to stop growing and let other parts of the country grow. The brain drain to SV has been disastrous for other communities. It's contributed to inequality and deep geographic/political polarization. Yes, you can downvote me but consider formulating a counter-argument.

[deleted]

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#56
post #24

IMO, it's gotten bad enough in the Bay Area that local control of zoning ought to get abolished. Make a new regional zoning commission, put together some clear and consistent rules about what can be built and where, and rubber-stamp everything that meets those rules. Literal rubber-stamp here, as in "you give us an affidavit saying that your plan meets the specified rules, and you get a permit to build the same day,…

Just for zoning requirements, not environmental ones, though.

Environmental requirements are often a back-door for NIMBY-ism. If you black-box the process, raising environmental concerns is a lever folks can pull to make specific proposed development more expensive and possibly cancelled. We have enough such levers. Everything of this "levers NIMBYs can pull to discourage development near them" category should get offloaded to a a bureaucracy that's empowered to ignore people yanking on them.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#57

Maybe the answer is to stop growing and let other parts of the country grow. The brain drain to SV has been disastrous for other communities. It's contributed to inequality and deep geographic/political polarization. Yes, you can downvote me but consider formulating a counter-argument.

Unless you can get a Constitutional amendment to legalize and then implement controls on internal migration, this isn't an option you have. People are already moving here faster than housing is being built, and they have been for a long time. Maintaining a housing shortage doesn't prevent migration, it just means that when migration happens it results in a pressure-cooker of a housing market.

We'd need an enormous amount of building just to accommodate the people who are already here.

You want to stop growth, put controls on migration or job creation. Controls on housing aren't working.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#58
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only ~10% of California's water use is residential/urban (varies a little bit year to year) [0]. The majority of non-environmental water is used to grow cash crops in the central valley, like almonds, which take 1 gal/almond. Overall, urban residents have far less impact on climate than exurban residents who drive around in SUVs. It is in the best interests of everyone on planet Earth to make our cities denser and mo…

One gallon per almond? But... one gallon of bottled water is more than a dollar. I know there's packaging and transportation, but there's packaging and transportation for the almonds, too. And almonds are not one dollar per almond. Do the almond growers receive subsidized water? I don't know how else the economics of this works out. (Unless the water used to grow almonds isn't up to the purity standards of drinking w…

Water is typically very cheap, when it's not bottled. So I imagine they aren't using bottled water, which would be outrageously priced, but hopefully it deters some people from buying it.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#59

It's a very anti-democratic move by California. They are willing to destroy local control of people in their communities to foster growth that will lead to further deterioration of living standards. Wouldn't it be better to try to grow tech outside of California in places like the Dakotas and Idaho where there is plenty of land and people in need of work? The American heartland could be a place rich in opportunity if…

It's perfectly democratic. Our elected state legislature is doing what they were elected to do. I'm sorry that you didn't like the result, but it's not undemocratic.

Re: Bills before the California Legislature would crack down on NIMBYs

#60
post #8

I'm making what I would think to be an upper middle class salary and I can't afford a home in a modestly decent neighborhood in L.A. It seems to me that there is definitely a problem and I support loosening development restrictions. It's not only restrictions though. Of the people I know who own property, many, if not the majority, own more than one property, some of them empty. I also know many remote Chinese that o…

You have hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, i fear that any sufficiently strong measures to restrict empty homes or foreign investment (see: empty home taxes in British Columbia) will be met with strong resistance from Democrats. As a resident of the Pacific Northwest, the same property squeeze is happening here on a similarly massive scale, also driven by foreign "investment". In my experience, advocating for…

Canadian-style empty home taxes would be a fairly easy sell to most Democrats. I suspect you're glossing over some additional rhetoric that's coming with it if you're being called an anti-immigrant Trump supporter.
Post reply on HN