It's suspicious that I can't find any news articles talking about this. Seems like a super interesting, controversial, and timely topic to cover. Makes me wonder if this blog is misleading or inflating the facts.
Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow
761–770 of 1001 posts
Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow
#762Earlier 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…
You should really check the air quality you're breathing. I agree about sound, but there's other ways to generate it. Seriously though, check the air quality you breath.
Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow
#763Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 pe…
I'm sure at town meetings there are plenty of unsavory things said, and people with prejudices show up in disproportionate numbers. It's just not accurate or OK to imply that all property owners seeking to keep their neighborhoods from rapidly changing to higher densities are doing so out of prejudice. Give people the benefit of believing they are primarily motivated by rational self interest rather than some irratio…
I have nothing against parks. Parks are great. But I'm not sure what problem they supposedly solve.
If I were living in an apartment, then a park would be better than nothing.
But I can't grow a vegetable garden in a park. I can't enjoy the park while I have stuff inside my house that I need to check on in 15 minutes. You can't let a 5 year-old go to the park alone but, if your backyard is relatively secured and you can see them out of your window, then you can let them play in the backyard. I can't let my dog out to run to the park in order to "do its business" etc. I don't have the same level of privacy and solitude at a park as I do in my backyard.
While there are certain things I would prioritize over a backyard (like having a garage to set up a "makers shop" in), there's not much I would trade a backyard for ... least of all a park.
Beyond the "yard solution" I also have a very hard time living in even medium-sized cities, let alone large ones. I don't like noise, traffic (street or pedestrian) or crowds. Public transportation is a nightmare for me and grocery delivery services have actually saved my life so I don't need or want a grocery store within walking distance (I find shopping to be one of the most stressful activities in life). Rural living is for me.
Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow
#764Earlier 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…
The pro-density crowd cannot comprehend wanting to live in a quiet, safe, uncrowded town. They say the only possible motivations are money and racism.
[deleted]
Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow
#765Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That depends on how long this goes on. It takes months to build a new unit, so it will make no difference in 3 months. In many areas there is a lot of pent up demand from people with more means who are living elsewhere, and they are now living in houses in areas far enough away that those living in tents won't find moving there useful.
In short it will take a decade or two of building to make a difference to those living in tents.
Also living in tents often implies other issues. More housing will not solve anything if your real issue is serious mental illness. There will also be a few people living in tents/on the street because their reason for living in tents is not related to the cost of housing. Building more housing will make a difference to those who's problem is housing is too expensive, but it can't help those who's problems are not high cost of housing.
Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow
#766Earlier 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…
Many of the big trees are on public right of ways. Nothing is happening to them. The center of many city residential blocks are still quiet green oasis. Busy streets will still stay busy, quiet side streets tend to stay that way. Go look at any european city, or any city outside of the US really
Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow
#767This 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…
> With no constraints on construction will there be a small boom in new development, tearing down virgin forest in order to make empty developments? Probably? I live in Michigan, which (with the exception of two spots) has no meaningful limits on construction. Even the cities that technically have-and-enforce zoning, waive all the rules constantly anytime a developer asks. And yes -- it means developers can build alm…
> (Truly anything, I live next to a 15-story concrete castle apartment building that a developer built on what was once a trailer park).
Ah, the good ol' Grandville castle.
It boggles my mind every time I drive past that someone decided to spend tens of millions to build... whatever the hell this is. https://cdngeneral.rentcafe.com/dmslivecafe/3/610177/DJI_018...
Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow
#768Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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…
Funny enough, Texas is basically the opposite: there's no income tax, and so it has to get taxes from property. That also has a couple of negative consequences:
There's a "homesteading exemption" for taxes on a primary residence. This means your property taxes can't shoot up massively if your property suddenly gets more expensive.
This pushes even more of the property tax burden onto investment properties, which sounds good to some in theory, but one affect it has is that rental properties are investment properties. So rents go up a lot. This means renters end up paying a lot of property taxes, which is, uh... a surprising outcome.
Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow
#769Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow
#770Earlier 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, they don't. These exact sorts of "well nobody likes" arguments are why the bureaucracy has the reach it does and CA has the problems it does. Yes, society probably won't crumble if we cave to your whining and regulate your pet issue of the minute but regulating in this manner is like littering in the park, if everyone does it the park is ruined. If people are poisoning the groundwater or creating other "off their…
> regulating in this manner is like littering in the park, if everyone does it the park is ruined
That's a pretty ironic comparison, because laws against littering are exactly the sort of quality-of-life regulation that you seem to oppose.