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

581–590 of 1001 posts

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

#581

Post by kiba »

nlavezzo wrote: post #511
hibikir wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

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?

Cars are currently two tons noise and pollution machine. It's no wonder why people feel unsafe around them.

You could restrict traffic to only bicycles and pedestrians combined with mixed zoning.

Also, lawn mowers....They're extremely loud.

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

#582

Post by TulliusCicero »

ericmay wrote: post #564
TulliusCicero wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 autho…

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

Straight up just admitting you didn't actually read what I wrote before responding, because I already specified. C'mon man.

"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."

> Do you recall?

Yes, and I made it extremely clear that I was objecting to calling this "anti-democratic". You then switched arguments for some reason, while acting like it was the same topic.

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

#583

Post by api »

nlavezzo wrote: post #511
hibikir wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

> that are safe for kids

It’s all about kids.

Without kids in the picture sure, go ahead, make cities look like Coruscant from Star Wars.

The instant you have kids you see how important open spaces safe enough for unstructured minimally supervised play are. Without spaces like this all you have are kids drooling on Roblox and YouTube all day. There’s nothing for kids in an urban core.

Those spaces don’t have to be undeveloped or even outdoor but I have yet to see a city successfully create an environment safe enough that I’d let my small daughters run around.

So while I agree that zoning is dumb and complicated, I also think it’s important to understand where people are coming from.

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

#584

Post by kccqzy »

hervature wrote: post #554
rnk wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that mysterious why people want this. For people of means, they want to preserve the quality of life that they see in having mostly single family homes and in the past keep it full of white people with money, hopefully the only whites thing has faded. Of course racism was a core issue in how these exclusions panned out in the US. If I'm in a city and and I own one of these houses, it's clear economically tha…

> it's clear economically that wanting to limit building multi-unit housing near me enhances the value growth of my property This argument never made sense for me. Being able to put more units in the same space drastically increases the value of the land. It of course reduces the value of other things like having towering buildings around your 2 story home which blocks your view. In this sense, home owners need to tu…

They have a different argument, namely by making sure houses are less dense, the total number of houses being built in an area is far less than what the land can support, leading to artificial scarcity in the market. The artificially limited supply then leads to high prices.

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

#585

Post by zajio1am »

rnk wrote: post #529
hibikir wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's not that mysterious why people want this. For people of means, they want to preserve the quality of life that they see in having mostly single family homes and in the past keep it full of white people with money, hopefully the only whites thing has faded. Of course racism was a core issue in how these exclusions panned out in the US. If I'm in a city and and I own one of these houses, it's clear economically tha…

There is evidence that opposition to new construction is not only from home-owners, but also from renters, due to economic ignorance: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2022/11/th...

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

#586

Post by jtbayly »

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…

I mean, you’re basically saying that you can have suburbia in the city?

If lots of people want it, the price will skyrocket, so then somebody will buy some land just outside the city and build suburbia there so more people can afford it.

Rinse and repeat.

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

#587

Post by steveklabnik »

DebtDeflation wrote: post #552
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.

Yes, it makes sense to mix Residential and Commercial in many cases. It rarely makes sense to mix Industrial with either Residential or Commercial. No one wants a smelter next to a house or an office.

This SimCity style thinking about zoning is just too simplistic. Yes, absolutely, nobody wants to live next to a smelter. But not every commercial property is a smelter. People love to live near corner stores, yet that is "commercial."

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

#589

Post by SamBam »

nlavezzo wrote: post #511
hibikir wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

> and low traffic streets that are safe for kids to play around

Actually, suburban streets are significantly more dangerous than urban streets, in terms of number of children killed, as a fraction of both population and miles driven.

> Motor vehicle traffic was the leading mechanism of unintentional injury death among children aged 5–13, with the rural rate (3.1) twice as high as the urban rate (1.5)

> Motor vehicle traffic was the leading mechanism of unintentional injury death among children aged 14–17 in both urban and rural areas; the rate was 2.5 times higher in rural (12.5) than in urban areas

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db421.htm

> cul-de-sac communities actually have some of the highest rates of traffic accidents involving young children. In fact, children in suburban communities are five times more likely to be killed in a pedestrian accident than urban children.

https://www.lewisandtompkins.com/motor-vehicle-and-public-tr...

> City streets safer than suburban roads, study finds

https://whyy.org/articles/study-city-driving-often-safer-tha...

> Cul-de-Sacs Are Killing Us: Public Safety Lessons From Suburbia

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2011/06/07/cul-de-sacs-are-killi...

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

#590

Post by deepakhj »

rcpt wrote: post #258
p0pcult wrote: post #2

This seems like a way to reduce homelessness and fix the housing market in one fell swoop.

As long as Prop 13 is on the books we're pretty fucked but yes this is huge

I think another attempt to reform prop 13 will happen in 2024.
Post reply on HN