Live data from Hacker News

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

darrellowens.substack.com

501–510 of 1001 posts

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

#501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It won't make economic sense to try a builder's remedy project in lower land value jurisdictions, especially when you consider the legal headache. This is why we saw so many in Santa Monica and few in, say, the Inland Empire.

Right, and I mean the Inland Empire doesn't have anywhere near the housing shortage of the coast anyway, right?

That, and what housing shortage it does have is largely a downstream effect of the housing shortage of the coast.

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

#502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth, most zoning is created by property owners, too. Gotta preserve their investment at the expense of our nation's growth.

> zoning is created by property owners Supported. Individual property owners rarely have external zoning power.

Um, sure. If you take away the property-owner lobby, the vast majority of truly bad zoning wouldn't exist. I'm comfortable ascribing causality directly to the force which, if removed, would eliminate the effect.

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

#503
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…

The article doesn’t mention it, but it’s my understanding that this auto-approval only happens within a certain distance of public transit as well. I know that’s been a part of prior laws by Wiener, but I could totes be wrong that it’s a part of this one as well. The developers still have to abide by construction laws - safety, and I think environmental impact. All that’s released (AFAIK?) is the zoning-based “no” fr…

I think you are referring to AB 2097, which allows more housing near transit hubs. It was passed in the latest legislative session, but is distinct from the Builder's Remedy and has height restrictions unlike the topic of this article. The same author wrote about it here:

https://darrellowens.substack.com/p/yimby-triumph-in-califor...

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

#504
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…

>Basically, shows that the State's tax difficulties are themselves the consequence of exclusion.

I'm not sure what you mean by tax difficulties, if you mean the state has trouble raising revenue, that's certainly not the case. CA is running a large budget surplus right now. If they only relied on property tax it could be an issue, but they also have an income tax, so the revenue outlook in CA is pretty good right now.

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

#505

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…

They demolish everything every 30 years

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

#506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This has the real possibility to destroy wealth and land value. Good. Treating increasing unaffordability as a good thing is an insane part of American culture. We didn't celebrate car prices going through the roof during the pandemic, and neither does it make sense to celebrate skyrocketing housing prices. The ideal price of housing would be zero, same as other products.

I mean hey, sucks for the people that live there already, but it ain't happening to me so its not my problem!

This was exactly the attitude causing the problem in the first place.

The long term solution of housing being cheap is obviously superior to the long term solution of housing prices doubling every generation until nobody but the very wealthy can afford to buy a home.

My parents own a home in the bay area, so it does actually indirectly affect me. But so did leaving the bay area because it was insanely expensive (and similarly, almost everyone from my graduating class left too).

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

#507

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…

> like Japan with like barely any zoning laws

I read an article a year or two ago (maybe posted here?) about Japan's zoning laws and they just make sense.

- Rather than dozens of categories, there are just 4 or 5 in increasing amounts of annoyance (e.g residence -> retail/office -> manufacturing) and areas approved for one level can always be used by lower levels.

- The laws are uniform nationally.

- Zoning decisions get made at higher levels (prefecture or national?) so they can consider what the whole region needs, and get less NIMBYism / maximize-my-near-term-property-value-ism.

I don't recall whether they even have the distinct single-family versus multi-family dwelling categorization that seems to cause so much of the housing supply shortage in the U.S.

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

#509
post #362

The headline makes it sound broader than it is. Rather than "CA Cities", it's actually "will eliminate the zoning ordinances of the vast majority of cities throughout the Bay Area" . Still pretty broad, of course.

Can anyone suggest an accurate, neutral title, preferably using representative language from the article, which fits within HN's 80 char limit? If so, I'll be happy to change it above. (We usually do this ourselves, but I find the details here a bit disorienting and don't have time to concentrate on it)

I think just changing "California" to "Bay Area" would be reasonable for now. If the article is correct, zoning is being completely eradicated, but I'm not sure why the poster decided to say it was for all of California.

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

#510

Stop. I can only get so erect. I'd still prefer to tackle the motivations for NIMBYism (namely: by using land value taxation to discourage or outright eliminate the treatment of land as a speculative asset) rather than the symptoms, but tackling the symptoms is infinitely better than doing nothing at all.

It's really hard (maybe impossible) to completely stop speculation on land while at the same time being sure you can estimate your living expenses very long term when you buy a house (or rent, if there's rent control). If you think housing is a human right then you have to lock down taxes, otherwise it's like yeah it's a human right until it becomes "too expensive for you" and the government kicks you out of your house because you can't pay taxes. The human right is to establish a home, not to have to be a nomad constantly moving around to the places where you can pay taxes/rent.

The problem is the current zoning laws are too individualistic. If let's say 20% of a block is ok to sell and allow high rises, if the building fits and meets neighborhood regulations they should be allowed to build it. In cities where you can do that, that usually convinces 60% more of the block into selling and moving out, since higher density housing zoning raises land prices. If you don't want to because you are in your last years, yeah that sucks. But you know what also sucks? Having to rent from slumlords or have 15 roommates in your prime while trying to contribute to society as a professional because your city decided to be a retirement community funded by commercial lease taxes from greedy tech companies.

Post reply on HN