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

591–600 of 1001 posts

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

#591

Post by CydeWeys »

rsaz wrote: post #509
dang wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because it's a statewide law. It is all of California, soon enough.

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

#592

Post by davidw »

ketzo wrote: post #329
thegrimmest wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? if a low density community wants to plan to remain low density, who are the rest of us to stop them?

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,…

At a certain point, it starts to be like "two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner" when you get some of these communities that don't want anyone else there. And that's fundamentally unfair.

I like the Strong Towns notion of "no massive changes anywhere, but lots of smaller changes everywhere", although in practice it's not always quite so smooth.

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

#593

Post by option »

epistasis wrote: post #515
mancerayder wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

it is easy to solve but never is solved somehow (judging this based on living in several European cities)

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

#594

Post by kiba »

ipaddr wrote: post #579
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 Like cleaner air, safer streets, less traffic and a better place to raise a child and/or dog with backyards and privacy.

Streets are dangerous because of cars zipping around. Cars contribute to air pollution quality (until electrified) and noise quality.

So, you ban cars from streets and allow only pedestrians and cyclists. Next, you allow local amenities to pop up so you don't feel the need to get a car out.

The suburban pattern of development as it currently exists isn't the only way to facilitate the quality of life you're looking for.

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

#595

Post by giantrobot »

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?

For one if zoning laws change tomorrow no one is going to bulldoze those neighborhoods on Thursday. So everyone already in their "safe" neighborhood will remain "safe". Except in rare circumstances no one is going to build a 10-lane expressway behind that tract of "safe" houses.

Second you've got to be realistic about the socioeconomic factors behind those "safe" suburbs.

The small, often winding suburban streets are largely impenetrable to buses and completely immune to light rail. This means public transit often used by "those people" (for whatever local definition of "those") is inaccessible from inside the "safe" suburban housing tracts. This is exacerbated by many suburbs lacking sidewalks. Inaccessibility of public transit was a design criteria for early suburbs preventing anyone that could afford a house but not a car from moving to them.

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

#596

Post by thatfrenchguy »

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?

You mean like all the medium-density neighborhoods of San Francisco? American R-1 suburbs are a nightmare for kids, and that's why you never see any kids outside there, tell me how this: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Menlo+Park,+CA/@37.4562493...

, in one of America's most expensive suburbs, is any sort of safe for kids.

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

#597

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#598

Post by hcurtiss »

webkike wrote: post #435
nostromo123 wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, f*k other people, let's cram as many souls as we can in affordable dystopian high rises... that's the spirit!

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

Any bets on whether eliminating zoning has any effect on the number of "people living in fucking tents?" In my experience, the people in tents aren't waiting with a down payment that's a few tens of thousands short of market. I think you're right that the solution here is being driven by homelessness. I also think it's more progressive wishful thinking.

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

#599

Post by rcpt »

deepakhj wrote: post #590
rcpt wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes but I don't think it'll affect residential.
Post reply on HN