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

671–680 of 1001 posts

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

#671

Post by HDThoreaun »

anigbrowl wrote: post #513
kevinburke wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's not dumb, it's cynical. Pushing less well off people into the most polluted areas rather than sharing space is a pattern that keeps reappearing in US society.

No, it’s dumb because the state rejected all these plans. Now they have zero say over what gets built because they tried to play games.

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

#672

Post by anyfoo »

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're describing European cities, there. That is literally how I grew up in a big city, and we were lower middle class at best.

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

#673

Post by RHSeeger »

lfuller wrote: post #632
ipaddr wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nearly all studies regarding suburban vs. urban streets have shown that suburban streets have significantly higher rates of child deaths and injuries than urban streets.

Out of curiosity (I do not know the answer), is there a study on the percentage of time that children spend playing outside in urban vs suburban vs rural areas?

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

#674

Post by tinglymintyfrsh »

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…

PA has random pockets of new development, like on Alma St & Page Mill across from where AOL was.

Mountain View has much more around the San Antonio Shopping Center where it's starting to look like SF.

I'm wondering if there will be random developments that will sink property values because big city blight comes with : homeless camping, property crime, and so forth.

Palo Alto is unique in California in that it is/was legal to dwell in a vehicle because it wasn't criminalized since the law had to be rolled back due to a Ninth Circuit ruling about another law in LA.

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

#675

Post by JAlexoid »

enaaem wrote: post #575
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…

First thing to fix is the broken financial model. Exclusive suburbs pay disproportional less taxes for low density, low efficient, infrastructure. They are being subsidised by high density areas. That's not fair.

I second that.

We moved from Manhattan an hour north into a rural area. Our town clears our road continuously during winter, while are property taxes are low single thousands. We get three trash pickups per week and other trash removal services included.

We woefully underpay for those services.

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

#676

Post by [deleted] »

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,…

[deleted]

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

#677

Post by AtlasBarfed »

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?

If you're going down the slippery slope of libertarianism (on a strange collective/communist level), then who are the rest of us to stop an individual property owner from selling his lot to someone that wants to build 5+1 multiunit housing?

So either you go right wing and you have no right to restrict developers on land they legitimately procure

Or you go left wing and you have no right to impose (?accidentally...ish?) racist, classist, and generationalist zoning results on people.

Or you go centrist and point out that population growth, livability, and cost for practically everyone is raging out of control because of zoning laws.

Now, that's all policy reasoning on idealistic grounds, which of course matters not at all! The real political calculus is rich (landed) vs the young / middle class / poor (priced out).

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

#678

Post by bluGill »

sdenton4 wrote: post #628
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…

Dumb question, but how do HOAs enforce things? Presumably they have some binding agreement, but I can't imagine why someone would opt into one. 'Why yes, I'd love to pay dues and fines to my noisiest neighbors.'

HOAs vary a lot. My mom is in an HOA because they shovel the snow to her front door in window. Really she lives in a 4 unit apartment where everyone has separate entrances and they are allowed to paint the walls and otherwise change the interior as they want. Which is to say for her needs she has the best of both apartment living and single family house living at the same time. The HOA does all exterior maintenance, and is a good deal.

There are also HOAs that place a lot of weird restrictions on what you can do. It really depends on the HOA, some are good, some are very bad.

That said, for the place where I personally am in life, a HOA is bad and I refuse to live in one.

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

#679

Post by amadeuspagel »

nostromo wrote: post #477
bootsmann wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think the solution is just nuking all zoning regulations from orbit. It has to be, because the in-group, i.e. the people already living there don't accrue the cost as that falls on the out-group, the people who need to live there (job etc) but cannot. Its the essence of a "f** you i got mine attitude"

San Francisco is 2/3rds renters, all of whom can vote. You shouldn't pretend that they have no say in how their city is run. If they want more rentals and more density, they have the power to vote for people who can make it happen. Instead they vote for people who talk a lot about preserving the character of San Francisco.

These renters mostly live in rent-controlled apartments, so they don't have the same interests as people who might want to move there.

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

#680

Post by apozem »

telotortium wrote: post #572
jedberg wrote: post #127

There is a developer in Cupertino who has been fighting with the city for years, who got awfully quiet lately. Now I know why. I suspect they have a plan for an absolutely massive high rise behind my house that they will be submitting at 8am tomorrow morning. My neighbors are going to be pissed .

By "high-rise", you must mean 5-over-1, right? I doubt anyone's going to build an actual high rise in the suburbs.

I mean, maybe it's a high rise. When the builder's remedy went into effect for Santa Monica, developers proposed 15- and 11-story apartment buildings [0].

There is a massive amount of demand for housing in California that is being choked by restrictive, ruinous zoning. Meeting that demand is going to take some big buildings.

[0]: https://www.planetizen.com/news/2022/12/120313-first-full-bu...

Post reply on HN