Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

darrellowens.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 1001 posts

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

#541

Post by TulliusCicero »

gibolt wrote: post #353
TulliusCicero wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of upzoning is to allow for more housing to be built, not to literally force it upon unsuspecting property owners. If nobody wants to sell, nobody wants to sell. But eventually...

Houses in Atherton are already the size of apartment buildings. You could house 10-20 units in them without any change to the exterior. Change will happen, people would gladly pay a normal Bay Area house cost to get 1/10 of an Atherton house and live in that school district

Yeah, that'd be great.

School districts/boundaries being so unequal is at least partially the result of zoning policy that makes it harder for people of less financial means to move into affluent areas.

I saw a counterexample living in Munich, just in the sense that the differences between neighborhoods in apparent wealth were much less stark than in the US. Almost everywhere looked vaguely middling, very few places looked obviously rich or poor. And so it's no surprise that the differences between public schools was lesser too.

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

#542

Post by epistasis »

munificent wrote: post #205
rcpt wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you can't built a chemical processing plant in a residential neighborhood, obviously Actually we have oil derricks in the middle of residential neighborhoods in Los Angeles.

As far as I know, pumping crude doesn't produce the same pollution and nearby collateral damage that processing chemicals does. Source: Grew up in Texas surrounded by mostly harmless pump jacks and then moved to Louisiana in Cancer Alley.

Just the wells themselves are prone to leaking lots of toxic gases, and a lot of the modern extraction procedures have additional risks too.

https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2020-03-05/deserte...

Modern epidemiology also enables really accurate tracking of the increase in asthma and other health problems near wells:

https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/articles/2021-06-02/urban...

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

#543

Post by steveklabnik »

anotheracctfo wrote: post #525
BenFranklin100 wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tokyo is not a free-for-all. It does zone for different uses by forbidding certain uses above a certain nuisance or hazard level. For instance, in many areas you can’t just plop down a chemical factory. The cool thing about Tokyo zoning though is that anything below a nuisance level is pretty much allowed. Want to build a house next to a dump or above a discotheque? Go for it, no one is going to stop you.

"I live above a bowling alley, and below another bowling alley" Rent has gotten so outrageous that this is a good thing now.

Some people have different preferences when it comes to housing.

My place overlooks a freeway. I really, truly dislike that freeway. But one thing I do like about it is the noise that it makes, even at night. I find it very hard to fall asleep in silence.

Oh and I should mention that most of the units in my building do not face the freeway, and therefore, those who prefer quiet can also get that, even in the same building.

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

#545

Post by praxulus »

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!

Which alternative is less dystopian?

* Clearcut wilderness to build more suburban homes

* Don't build more homes, just stuff more people into existing homes

* Let the excess population live in cars or on the sidewalk

* Cull the excess population

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

#546

Post by andromeduck »

schnable wrote: post #160
LewisVerstappen wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> reduce homelessness Is the homeless problem due to the cost of housing? Or is it moreso due to fentanyl?

It's three main things: lack of housing, lack of support for the mentally ill, and drug addiction. The proportion of each varies in different cities.

Lack of opportunity at the lower rungs as well. No factory/construction jobs means it's service or bustwithout a college degree.

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

#547

Post by gretch »

encryptluks2 wrote: post #475
webkike wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'd rather live in a tent in a rural area with access to nature than an inner city high rise.

Okay fantastic. California and the USA has extremely huge amounts of 'rural area with access to nature'. Enough for everyone with those desires to set up shop. I really don't think anyone would complain at all as many people are already camped on city sidewalks and we tolerate it, so hey, it's a somewhat improvement.

For everyone else, we are in desperate demand of 'inner city high rise'

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

#548

Post by jackson1442 »

pvarangot wrote: post #510
yellowapple wrote: post #459

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 hou…

Maybe there's room to make a safe harbor for your primary residence?

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

#549

Post by floren »

outworlder wrote: post #382
fnordpiglet wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Truth is people want to live in a community of the character they choose when they moved into that community. They are not _entitled_ to forever freeze a city just because they live there. I bet they would not like their town if it still looked the same as it was in 1890.

> They are not _entitled_ to forever freeze a city just because they live there

I agree, and I apply the same logic when somebody complains about gentrification.

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

#550

Post by snordgren »

thegrimmest wrote: post #322
gremlinsinc wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

then they should enforce 1 child per family while they're at it. their kids have to live somewhere right? I live in a rural city in Utah that doesn't like building new homes yet it's a Mormon town where families are about 5 kids on average. if you want grandkids nearby then more homes need built. period.

Or people whom the community has no room for can leave. I think this comes from an axiomatic disagreement about what being born/alive entitles a person to. My view is that we are all born owning nothing, and that everything we acquire we must acquire via consensual exchange.

According to that line of thinking, older generations should also stop receiving support from welfare and social security. Let them sell their houses and leave their communities if they can't afford to acquire the goods and services they need through consensual exchange.

And yet very few will accept elderly starving in the streets en masse because their pensions were gutted or went bankrupt. And so some measure of intergenerational agreement is necessary, where each generation provides for the next.

Post reply on HN