Live data from Hacker News

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

darrellowens.substack.com

511–520 of 1001 posts

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

#511

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…

This has little to do with the existence of zoning laws themselves, but the specific zones that they define. Japan has zones, so does Spain. But there's just nothing anywhere near as Restrictive as most US cities' R1 zone. Many places have R2s and R3s that are still more restrictive than the least dense thing than a Spanish city has. Remove zones alone, and HOAs will get areas into legally binding covenants that are…

> The answers are very uncomfortable.

Are they? Isn't it possible that people who live in beautiful neighborhoods with mature trees, nice big yards, and low traffic streets that are safe for kids to play around, want to keep them that way for primarily those reasons?

Of course their desires alone shouldn't be the final word on proposed changes to codes, but implying that all of these homeowners are primarily driven by prejudice is a pretty big leap given the many obvious benefits of the status quo for them.

I imagine you could take almost any demographic and put them in a low density neighborhood with big yards, trees, low traffic, and neighbors that they've known for decades, and they're going to resist change.

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

#512

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…

Yeah, no kidding, no residential zoning at all? Hard to believe it's CA, but good for them! This will vastly improve the housing situation, if CA has sense enough to keep it this way.

Isn't this misleading? It's not "no zoning" it's specifically required to be low-income or whatever housing. Right?

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

#513

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.

This is actually the compromise position - California proposed SB 50, which would have unilaterally set density standards near transit and permitted fourplexes in single family zones. Cities fiercely opposed this. So instead we have this dumb system where every city gets a target number from the state and can choose where the housing goes, as long as they can show they meet the target. "Local control!" Most of them a…

It's not dumb, it's cynical. Pushing less well off people into the most polluted areas rather than sharing space is a pattern that keeps reappearing in US society.

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

#514
post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I am super-duper not a lawyer, so I don't have a sense of what is true and legal. I'm mostly talking about what I think should be true and legal.

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

#515
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.

High rises are for people who aren't light sleepers, don't mind hearing music and noise in adjacent walls or above or below, are tolerant of parties and generally sociable. Guess who fits that demographic? Young single people and young couples who go out. The average middle age crank needs a house without shared walls and space. There are individual preferences at play here. No one chooses a high rise, it's just more…

This is absolutely incorrect, and sound dampening is easy to solve, and to write into code if cities actually cared about it.

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

#516

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…

As an aside... I find it fun that people in the US use the term 'Victorian' to describe an era. I like the idea of naming an era in a Republic after a foreign monarch.

Incidentally, if it were 100 years old it would be Georgian. Vitoria died in 1901

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

#517

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 .

[flagged]

This seems to be a completely baseless accusation of corruption... or is there some other meaning here I'm not understanding?

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

#518
post #433

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?

[deleted]

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

#519
California is still in the middle of a drought, and politicians want to railroad the production of additional housing supply for more people when the state can barely afford to provide for the water needs of the population it has?

Yeah, sounds like California.

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

#520

It's unlikely to change development significantly. California NIMBYs still have enormous autonomy through CEQA. It enables any individual to contest developments for years, obligating developers enormous sums of money and time to study "environmental impacts". Last winter, the law was expanded through a ruling in Berkeley. If a development adds a sizable number of people, it can be seen as an environmental impact and…

I encourage you to read

https://www.yimbylaw.org/law-journal/does-it-matter-that-ceq...

20% affordable housing projects are exempt.

Post reply on HN