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

#701

Post by throwaway5959 » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:40 PM UTC

ch4s3 wrote: post #568

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?

Well they don't have any rights over property they don't own. Why should a narrow majority or as is often the case a small but highly motivated minority have a veto over any conceivable use of your property just because it happens to be near them. I'm not proposing allowing a chicken processing plant in a residential area, but it's no one else's business if you want to build a duplex on a lot you own.

See also: sea water desalination blocked by the CA coastal commission over the will of literally everyone else.

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

#702

Post by Tiktaalik » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:40 PM UTC

TulliusCicero wrote: post #284

kqr2 wrote: post #48

How would the builder's remedy work in a place like Atherton if the homeowners form a pact and refuse to sell to any developers? E.g. if Marc Andreessen ( https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/marc-andre... ) and Steph Curry ( https://therealdeal.com/2023/01/29/steph-curry-shoots-his-ni... ) form a coalition with other residents then they can effectively keep the city down zoned even if builder's remedy i…

The point of upzoning is to allow for more housing to be built, not to literally force it upon unsuspecting property owners. If nobody wants to sell, nobody wants to sell. But eventually...

Yep. Eventually the rich die and their kids have zero interest in living in the town and sell the property on an open market and huzzah now there is the potential start to open up the opportunities for more people to live in the gated community.

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

#703

Post by kelnos » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:40 PM UTC

api wrote: post #583

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…

> 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 un…

Your opinion here seems to come from more a lack of experience or imagination, than from reality. Yes, many US "urban cores" are as you describe. But that is not the norm. The US is severely broken when it comes to city planning, and has been since at least the advent of the automobile.

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

#704

Post by cheeseomlit » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:41 PM UTC

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.

Probably because kids dont play outside on urban streets at all, it'd be an instant death sentence

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

#705

Post by madamelic » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:41 PM UTC

Good for them.

CA doing something good for once and walking-the-walk.

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

#706

Post by 988747 » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:41 PM UTC

fragmede wrote: post #128

whimsicalism wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am excited to see how well a coalition of rich people performs once they start getting massive bids.

Especially when they fight with each other, as neighbors do. The wealthy aren't always a monolithic block of undifferentiated piles of money so, not that I know what the future holds, but imagine you've been squabbling with your neighbor for decades; you've always wanted to move back east. What better giant finger to that neighbor than selling your multi-acre estate to be replaced by a 30 or 100-unit apartment comple…

> What better giant finger to that neighbor than selling your multi-acre estate to be replaced by a 30 or 100-unit apartment complex?

You really do not realize how big (or small, rather) apartment complexes are. 100-unit building is the size of 6-7 single family homes (or maybe 3 McMansions), and maybe twice as high. It would barely be noticeable in such neighborhood.

See this for example: https://ctexaminer.com/2021/10/23/100-unit-apartment-complex...

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

#707

Post by HWR_14 » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:42 PM UTC

cal5k wrote: post #433

LynxInLA wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Median sale price in Houston is currently $310,500, vs $441,250 in Sacramento, $917,500 in LA and $1.3MM in SF. Aesthetic judgments aside, seems like a winning strategy for housing affordability?

I mean, houses abutting landfills are even cheaper, but no one would consider "put landfills everywhere" a good strategy.

Houston has had a stable population (per square mile) over the past decade and has a median income of ~$50,000. Sacramento has had the population per square mile increase by ~15% in the past decade and has a median income of ~$71,000. San Francisco has had the population per square mile increase by ~9% in the past decade and has a median income of ~$126,000.

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

#708

Post by JoshTriplett » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:42 PM UTC

jp57 wrote: post #531

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…

> Remove zones alone, and HOAs will get areas into legally binding covenants that are also just as tough as their current zoning regulation. This. Houston has little or no zoning and is terribly sprawling and car-centric. Despite the lack of zoning, in most neighborhoods you can't just build whatever you want because of restrictive covenants. Developers build massive car-focused single-family-only developments and lo…

Next up, get rid of HOAs.

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

#709

Post by bluGill » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:43 PM UTC

bad_good_guy wrote: post #488

cal5k wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Median sale price in Houston is currently $310,500, vs $441,250 in Sacramento, $917,500 in LA and $1.3MM in SF. Aesthetic judgments aside, seems like a winning strategy for housing affordability?

California has a population density of 249.1 people per sq mile compared to 103.2 people per sq mile in Texas. Seems an obviously more important factor here.

Both states have a lot of rural areas that should not be counted when considering density. CSA and MSA for a city are the easiest to look up that can be compared. Even then though things are misleading. (the MSA for my city is mostly large farms so overall our density is very low, but if you only take the parts that look like a city is much higher)

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

#710

Post by aclatuts » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:43 PM UTC

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 isn't some unknown town that put in a lot of planning, money, and effort to create demand. The only thing of "value" that happened was that a state full of good weather and jobs was monopolized early with low density housing. I don't know of any small towns that don't want more growth. Asking for more planning is only used in areas of rampant speculation.

Also the whole idea behind the suburban experiment was the idea that it was a finished state. That there was absolutely no need to densify or plan for growth, because more suburban land could just be annexed.