Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow • Hacker News Board

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

#601

Post by egberts1 » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:11 PM UTC

kevinburke wrote: post #232

jvanderbot wrote: post #6

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…

caldecott and hi-rise near freeways sounds like viable options.

you make it sound like it is a bad thing.

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

#602

Post by gumby » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:11 PM UTC

mateo411 wrote: post #504

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…

>Basically, shows that the State's tax difficulties are themselves the consequence of exclusion. I'm not sure what you mean by tax difficulties, if you mean the state has trouble raising revenue, that's certainly not the case. CA is running a large budget surplus right now. If they only relied on property tax it could be an issue, but they also have an income tax, so the revenue outlook in CA is pretty good right now…

Fari enough: let me clarify. Because California gets so little tax from property, it must get more from income taxes. That has a couple of negative consequences.

The nice thing about property taxes is that housing prices change slowly, even in boom/bust cycles -- essentially they are coupled to a dashpot. While income, especially in California with a progressive system coupled with most of the high earners paying cap gains, leading to large swings (further influenced by the Fed).

Also property taxes are the main source of municipal and school funding; with property taxes artificially pulled low, the state needs to step in instead. In addition, the structure of Prop 13 discourages people from moving which reduces the availability of housing stock.

Prop 13 wouldn't be so bad if it excluded commercial buildings (including rental properties) and didn't have the huge inheritance loophole. But neither of those is likely to change.

The reason I mentioned the coupling between prop 13 and exclusion: Californians voided all restrictive covenants in the 60s, which lead to more selective zoning restrictions; Prop 13 came from conservative southern californians and (due to the stickiness mentioned above, including a retroactive valuation reduction and the inheritance loophole) locked a lot of "those" buyers out of the existing neghborhoods.

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

#603

Post by vineyardmike » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:11 PM UTC

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…

> 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?

Yes that is absolutely something people want. You can get that in cities if you give up on yard and instead share with parks. That said, some of the reasons people want it are uncomfortable.

Some people don’t like change and moved somewhere based on how it looked in , understandable, but change is a part of life especially as our population grows. Streets that are safe for kids are common in many parts of the world, in many different city structures, not just suburbs. So the “family friendly” myth about suburbs isn’t true.

Regarding uncomfortable truths, if you go and listen to some of the town meetings, you’ll walk away with a couple points, of varying degrees of prejudice.

Some people simply want it to be “exclusionary” to keep prices up, and to keep themselves feeling special. Those people in town meetings may suggest paying for affordable housing in another town to keep theirs as is.

Some people will say they don’t want affordable housing because “we all know that those people bring crime”. This can be a varying degree of prejudice, whether it’s low income people or racial minorities, but invariably someone always says it.

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

#604

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:11 PM UTC

steveklabnik wrote: post #543

anotheracctfo wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 bui…

[deleted]

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

#605

Post by hcurtiss » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:11 PM UTC

praxulus wrote: post #545

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!

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

Maybe excess population live somewhere else that costs less? That is, quite literally, the choice I made.

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

#606

Post by ibejoeb » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:11 PM UTC

LynxInLA wrote: post #395

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'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.

What's wrong with Houston? You have pretty much whatever you want there. You can go get a single family house, live in a gated community, rent a shack on the bayou, go be a hipster in montrose, live in a high-rise downtown... Pretty good as far as I'm concerned.

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

#607

Post by JAlexoid » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:12 PM UTC

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…

They absolutely can.

In the end it should be their right... but... what happens now, is that they underpay for the infrastructure and services they get.

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

#608

Post by brundolf » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:12 PM UTC

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…

Having lived in Texas my whole life this idea was mostly foreign to me, but last year I visited Brooklyn and had my eyes opened

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

#609

Post by WkndTriathlete » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:13 PM UTC

steveklabnik wrote: post #587

DebtDeflation wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

That's why zoning in the US is classified Residential, Commercial / Light Industrial, and Heavy Industrial, and Residential never abuts Heavy Industrial.

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

#610

Post by spockz » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:13 PM UTC

SamBam wrote: post #589

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…

> 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…

But why is that? Maybe because children don’t play on the street at all in the city. So what does the fraction look when we take children playing outside and be healthy instead of just children?

The chance remains the same but for the ones that survive there is a better quality of life.