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

561–570 of 1001 posts

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

#561

Post by CydeWeys »

whakim wrote: post #333
AdrianB1 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the relation between property rights and services? Paying for consumption versus having property rights is orthogonal.

The relationship is that private property only exists because of a system that enforces it and provides many of the services that lend it value. Whatever you think of this system, the two are deeply intertwined.

And, crucially, the relevant services all have easements that supercede your desires to do whatever you want on your property. You don't have the right to NOT have a powerline going down the street on your property, or a city sewer line, or a sidewalk, etc.

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

#562

Post by zajio1am »

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 think that many US people have too optimistic idea about zoning laws in other countries. In many countries there are floor area ratio requirements in zoning plans and if you have ratio limit 0.2 on <1000 m^2 land lots, you cannot really build anything much different than single family housing.

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

#563

Post by crooked-v »

danans wrote: post #377
HDThoreaun wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can also be 100% affordable to moderate income although that's almost assuredly less lucrative.

Perhaps it's less lucrative, but it would still allow for increasing the housing stock without putting a 50 unit building in the midst of an existing SFH neighborhood. Developers will also need to weigh the desirability of what they build into the equation. There's quite possibly a sweet spot of desirability and affordability at 3 dwellings per lot. As an example, I live on a multi-dwelling lot (effectively town-home…

Unfortunately, many California cities are so incredibly far behind what's actually needed for equitable housing costs that the only practical way for them to catch up is a lot of 50-unit buildings built yesterday.

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

#564

Post by ericmay »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #492
ericmay wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's nothing fundamentally anti-democratic about higher government overriding lower government. > It'd probably be better to decide this with a metro-level authority rather than the state, but the state is still better than the city. What about if the state of Ohio overrides Columbus' gun restrictions? (ex) What if the state of Nevada mandates cities provide 2 parking spaces per dwelling? You're just picking and…

> What about if the state of Ohio overrides Columbus' gun restrictions? (ex) > What if the state of Nevada mandates cities provide 2 parking spaces per dwelling? Those are bad because the ideas are bad, not because they're "anti-democratic". > You're just picking and choosing when the "higher" government overrides the "local" government. When you agree with it, it's good. When you disagree it's presumably still good…

> It'd probably be better to decide this with a metro-level authority rather than the state, but the state is still better than the city.

It seems to me you do imply that a state level authority or higher is inherently better. But anyway, why not just clarify your position? It's not a big deal.

> Those are bad because the ideas are bad, not because they're "anti-democratic".

Ok let's start simple, what level of authority should decide those things [1]? State? City? Muni? Federal?

> Please try to stay on your own topic.

If I changed topics that's fine we can talk about the new topic or not. I don't even know what the exact topic was. Do you recall?

[1] A state declares that all dwellings should have a minimum of two parking spaces, and the state law overrides the city's gun laws.

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

#565

Post by Zafira »

eddsh1994 wrote: post #436
cal5k wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

California cities like Atherton, Woodside, Bradbury, San Marino, etc. are bad metrics to use for anything approaching affordable housing.

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

#566

Post by OnlineGladiator »

maxsilver wrote: post #422
gumby wrote: 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…

> With no constraints on construction will there be a small boom in new development, tearing down virgin forest in order to make empty developments? Probably? I live in Michigan, which (with the exception of two spots) has no meaningful limits on construction. Even the cities that technically have-and-enforce zoning, waive all the rules constantly anytime a developer asks. And yes -- it means developers can build alm…

> Unfortunately, it does not mean you get lower cost of housing

You don't believe in supply and demand? I'm not saying you have cheap housing. I'm saying you would have more expensive housing if there were fewer of them, the same way GPUs are more valuable when there are fewer of them.

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

#567

Post by wakannai »

Because California with its infinite water supply can definitely support an infinite increase in population, right?

Higher density areas don't solve a single problem. They make areas less desirable. They displace wildlife (less green areas, because WE NEED MORE HOUSING). Pandemics love density.

Higher density means more people, more local spending power, more local businesses, more demand for workers that translates into more demand for people and thus again yet again and so on and so forth. There's no end to this cycle.

The answer is less population, not more.

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

#568

Post by ch4s3 »

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?

Well they don't have any rights over property they don't own. Why should a narrow majority or as is often the case a small but highly motivated minority have a veto over any conceivable use of your property just because it happens to be near them.

I'm not proposing allowing a chicken processing plant in a residential area, but it's no one else's business if you want to build a duplex on a lot you own.

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

#569

Post by hcurtiss »

jackson1442 wrote: post #540
nlavezzo wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 b…

You can have all this (and more!) in cities as well. Lived in Seattle for a bit and my apartment had several neighborhoods of single-family homes within a couple blocks: each with mature trees, yards, and low traffic streets. Sure, the yard maybe isn't as massive as you can get in a suburb, but there's still plenty of space (and far more public parks). Because they were so close to dense housing, they also had the ad…

But I do think that's a matter of opinion, and totally unrelated to prejudice.

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

#570

Post by nilsbunger »

We're hosting a Zoning Holiday party tomorrow in SF at SPUR center to celebrate!

25+ architects for all kinds of firms submitted 5-unit designs to us, and we'll showcase them at the event!

It'll be a fun opportunity to meet likeminded property owners, architects, YIMBY advocates and developers. The event is open to all, just buy a $10 ticket. There will even be kebabs. Check out https://zoningholiday.com

Post reply on HN