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

#71

Post by nine_k » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 5:09 PM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #19

thepasswordis wrote: post #5

Wow that's great news! The level of bureaucratic creep that has been imposed on property owners is actually unbelievable to me. I obviously understand some regulations (you can't built a chemical processing plant in a residential neighborhood, obviously), but cities have creeped themselves into all-powerful overseers. Most cities now have the power to tell you what kind of house you can build, how you can paint it, h…

> how you can landscape it, what kinds of cars you can keep in your own driveway These two at least make some sense. The former, landscaping restrictions, can be used to prevent people from creating groundwater issues or flood risks, and the latter... no one wants a neighbor in a residential zone keeping broken-down trash cars out in the open. Some things have to be regulated even in a relatively free society because…

How would a broken-down car on a driveway ruin everyone else's life?

Even so, today's trash car that does not look posh can be a tomorrow's restored historical car that does.

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

#72

Post by pjdemers » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 5:09 PM UTC

david2ndaccount wrote: post #33

From my observation, these new housing developments are built without adequate parking and without improvements to the streets, leading to congested messes and worsening already bad traffic. How people can see this as a positive is unknown to me.

On my street, a parcel with one home was just rezoned for 24 homes - with zero on site parking. 24 homes without parking will add ~ 50 cars to on street parking. There is room for maybe 30 cars on the local streets without having to cross a 6 lane highway. Interesting to see how this will play out.

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

#73

Post by mc32 » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 5:09 PM UTC

thepasswordis wrote: post #5

Wow that's great news! The level of bureaucratic creep that has been imposed on property owners is actually unbelievable to me. I obviously understand some regulations (you can't built a chemical processing plant in a residential neighborhood, obviously), but cities have creeped themselves into all-powerful overseers. Most cities now have the power to tell you what kind of house you can build, how you can paint it, h…

Goodbye "high-rises can't be built in SF because they cast an unsightly shadow". But also hope it doesn't mean California gets to regulate San Jose's "green belt".

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

#74

Post by Finnucane » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 5:09 PM UTC

thepasswordis wrote: post #5

Wow that's great news! The level of bureaucratic creep that has been imposed on property owners is actually unbelievable to me. I obviously understand some regulations (you can't built a chemical processing plant in a residential neighborhood, obviously), but cities have creeped themselves into all-powerful overseers. Most cities now have the power to tell you what kind of house you can build, how you can paint it, h…

>(you can't built a chemical processing plant in a residential neighborhood, obviously)

You can get darn close in some places. I mean, in Texas, residential damage and evacuations from chemical plant explosions are practically routine. I live in a neighborhood surrounded by biotech labs, which tend not to blow up, though we do joke a bit about being zombie-apocalypse-ground-zero (also, every available developable lot gets sucked up by a new lab project). And of course, in some rural areas, the proximity of farms waste lagoons and low-income neighborhoods is a serious issue.

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

#75

Post by forthwall » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 5:09 PM UTC

david2ndaccount wrote: post #33

From my observation, these new housing developments are built without adequate parking and without improvements to the streets, leading to congested messes and worsening already bad traffic. How people can see this as a positive is unknown to me.

Building neighborhoods with parking can lead to worse traffic, the further out you build things, the more likely people need to drive. Roads cannot become infinitely wide, so if there's a shopping center in the middle of a city, but houses spread out for tens of miles, all those people in the radius will drive, causing more traffic. If everyone is in a denser location where more trips don't need to be done with driving, people will opt out of a car, or use a car way less, thus less congestion.

San Jose is mostly zoned single family homes with lots of parking, yet there's plenty of traffic. Maybe it's the ample space devoted to parking and driving that's the real problem, as it forces you to drive.

I think the next step is providing more services closer to people in these upzoned areas, as well as good transit to commercial centers so they can opt out of driving entirely.

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

#76

Post by dylan604 » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 5:09 PM UTC

thepasswordis wrote: post #41

mschuster91 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how you can landscape it, what kinds of cars you can keep in your own driveway These two at least make some sense. The former, landscaping restrictions, can be used to prevent people from creating groundwater issues or flood risks, and the latter... no one wants a neighbor in a residential zone keeping broken-down trash cars out in the open. Some things have to be regulated even in a relatively free society because…

>no one wants a neighbor in a residential zone keeping broken-down trash cars out in the open. Do those neighbors care what I want?

so let me ask from a point of trying to see it the other way, why do you want broken-down trash cars out in the open of your house? if you're just playing devil's advocate, then whatever, but if you truly want trash cars, I truly want to hear why

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

#77

Post by PuppyTailWags » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 5:09 PM UTC

dahfizz wrote: post #43

gretch wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a property owner, I've always found this to be remarkably short sighted. If the city booms, land value goes up. E.g. Manhattan. Trying to keep your small suburb a small suburb isn't maximizing investor value. edit: to responders, yes I'm aware houses have other value. My comment is in response the parent comment that specifically addresses investment value protection aspect.

Some people just want to live in a small suburb

I get some people want to live in a small suburb. Small suburbs are often quiet and peaceful. But small suburbs are also inefficient, environmentally unfriendly, and expensive to support so much road/electricity/water/etc infrastructure for so few people. Especially if the voting base of the suburb is effectively strangling their children by ensuring their kids will never be able to themselves afford a life there. It makes sense to me that the broader voting base is seeing they no longer benefit from a minority of suburban voters with a hold on city-level politics, and thereby vote in state-level politicians to force the issue.

edited to add: I'm sympathetic to the suburban homeowners near/in cities who are under pressure for their lifestyle and environment to end up rapidly changing within their generation due to economic local growth. I just don't think it's reasonable that that sympathy should extend to supporting their wants over the clear consequences of refusing to capitulate to the majority's needs for more housing.

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

#78

Post by jeffbee » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 5:09 PM UTC

DoneWithAllThat wrote: post #37

So when and if this takes effect, what do self proclaimed YIMBYs think is going to happen to everything in these cities that aren’t housing? Schools, roads, grocery stores, public transit, parks, etc. Is the thinking that they’re just going to magically be expanded to meet the massively higher density than these areas were ever planned to built for?

I live in Berkeley. Berkeley was originally zoned, when zoning was invented, for about a quarter million people. Berkeley has the water and sewer supply for this population. Berkeley has three subway stations that were planned to serve this population. But, in a reactionary spasm by White people suddenly faced with a rapidly growing Black population between 1950 and 1970, the city down-zoned itself in 1975, cutting the ultimate resident population capacity in half. We have an abundance of infrastructure and not enough people to exploit it or, crucially, to fund its maintenance.

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

#79

Post by undert0wn » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 5:09 PM UTC

The article doesn't specify that it will open to commercial zoning. Just that there is no limit to residential. So if someone has the capital there is no height limit to build in a residential area... I don't see much changing here. Most people won't add on a second, third, or fourth floor. New builds however... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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

#80

Post by GalenErso » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 5:10 PM UTC

dahfizz wrote: post #43

gretch wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a property owner, I've always found this to be remarkably short sighted. If the city booms, land value goes up. E.g. Manhattan. Trying to keep your small suburb a small suburb isn't maximizing investor value. edit: to responders, yes I'm aware houses have other value. My comment is in response the parent comment that specifically addresses investment value protection aspect.

Some people just want to live in a small suburb

You can't have your cake and eat it too.