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

#771

Post by steveklabnik » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 8:05 PM UTC

nemo44x wrote: post #762

steveklabnik wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Air quality is absolutely one of the reasons that I hate that highway. It sucks.

I'm of the persuasion that highways should never go through cities. I'd never argue living by a highway is good. It's just that one isolated aspect of it that others may find bad, I find good, due to preference.

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

#772

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 8:06 PM UTC

JAlexoid wrote: post #643

api wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I grew up in a Soviet planned city, with courtyard focused developments. Our playgrounds were(they still are) larger and more accessible, than anything my current neighbours kids get on their 2a of land in rural USA. Even the new developments in Eastern Europe provide a kid friendly courtyard. Shielded from all traffic and observable by literally the whole community. Suburbia should be reserved for the insane rich pe…

[deleted]

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

#773

Post by jackson1442 » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 8:06 PM UTC

zzzeek wrote: post #693

jackson1442 wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I dont like noise, light pollution, or crowds. I'd like nighttime to be silent and pitch dark, and the daytime to be mostly silent as well. I go on trips and need to be able to load lots of stuff in and out of "my" or "a" car without living in terror of all of my stuff getting stolen while I'm inside. Where should I live? Note: I lived in three different boroughs of NYC for 25 years

Sounds like the country is the place for you, I experienced all of that in a suburb.

The "living in terror" part sounds like you could use some work on mindfulness though.

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

#774

Post by rootusrootus » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 8:06 PM UTC

rcpt wrote: post #227

nemo44x wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, people here celebrating this don't understand at all that all this does is give developers more power over communities they have no interest in but money. And of course, the politicians that they will fund/bribe to make this happen. We just went from democracy to oligarchy in this case.

Home owners, not developers, get all the profits in real estate. https://oregoneconomicanalysis.com/2021/03/16/who-benefits-f...

Collectively, perhaps, but the developer who built my house has by far the biggest house in the area, on the nicest property, with the nicest cars, and Facebook albums filled to the brim with pictures of him meeting famous people I'll not ever get to schmooze with.

I think his profit margin must be okay.

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

#775

Post by Dig1t » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 8:06 PM UTC

GenerocUsername wrote: post #626

vineyardmike wrote: post #603

Earlier 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…

Parks cannot replace yards as long as the homeless camps exist across every existing park in my city.

Yes, exactly this. Additionally we have seen how many once beautiful cities and parks have turned into unsafe homeless camps because of government policy. If I buy a house with a nice backyard I can guarantee that it will be nice as long as I maintain it. I cannot guarantee that the local park will not turn into a needle strewn homeless camp sometime in the future when some politician changes something.

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

#776

Post by crooked-v » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 8:06 PM UTC

mancerayder wrote: post #725

crooked-v wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of high-density buildings that don't require 'light sleepers'. I live in one right now. The only sound I hear from other units is if we both have windows open; otherwise it's dead quiet to the point that I had to put in some rugs to muffle echoes from walking around on the tiled floors.

I live in the most modern and luxurious of modern luxury buildings and while most people don't complain about noise, I'm jolted awake by door slamming in the hallway, I can hear parties two floors up and music (bass specifically) travels effortlessly through all the modern concrete floor and non-concrete walls all the same. It depends more on the neighbors than the construction. Nothing will stop a modern subwoofer.…

It sounds like where you live isn't actually a luxury building... it's just an expensive but cheaply built building that was labeled 'luxury' to try and justify the price tag.

The solution here isn't to pretend that high-density buildings aren't needed, because they absolutely are; rather, it's to apply and enforce reasonable standards around noise insulation in shared-wall units, and to reduce the time and expense of the permitting and planning process in general so that there isn't as much motivation to cut corners to save money on the back end.

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

#777

Post by rootusrootus » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 8:07 PM UTC

jmeister wrote: post #524

nemo44x wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, people here celebrating this don't understand at all that all this does is give developers more power over communities they have no interest in but money. And of course, the politicians that they will fund/bribe to make this happen. We just went from democracy to oligarchy in this case.

Who cares if the developers get rich? Do you(and the rest of society) get what you want? “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages” ― Adam Smith

> Do you(and the rest of society) get what you want?

That is an interesting question. In many cases people here are advocating that the locals don't get what they want, so that "the rest of society" does.

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

#778

Post by JoshTriplett » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 8:08 PM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #728

JoshTriplett wrote: post #708

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Next up, get rid of HOAs.

HOAs are the most local form of democracy there is. Perhaps just reduce the overwhelming supermajority requirements to dissolve them, perhaps. In many places your only viable option if you don't like your HOA is get elected to the board yourself along with enough like-minded neighbors. You might not be able to dissolve it, but you could seriously neuter the policies if you wanted.

> HOAs are the most local form of democracy there is.

Yes, they're the most local demonstration of the fact that "democracy" is not an acceptable approach to decide what color I can paint my house, or what plants I can plant, or how soon after the 6am garbage pickup my garbage can has to be brought inside.

They're also, often, not even a democracy: they're a loudest-ocracy, because most people have better things to do with their time than dictate what their neighbors can do.

Destroy HOAs with fire.

To be clear, echoing a point from elsewhere in this thread: nobody should have to have an asphalt manufacturing plant next to their home. But that same premise doesn't extend to "nobody should have a house next to them with an Unapproved Paint Color".

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

#779

Post by sneak » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 8:09 PM UTC

hcurtiss wrote: post #605

praxulus wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's item 1 on the menu he offered.

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

#780

Post by nemo44x » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 8:09 PM UTC

OnlineGladiator wrote: post #566

maxsilver wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Unfortunately, it does not mean you get lower cost of housing You don't believe in supply and demand? I'm not saying you have cheap housing. I'm saying you would have more expensive housing if there were fewer of them, the same way GPUs are more valuable when there are fewer of them.

What you're not factoring in is the cost of labor and materials. They are both already quite expensive and when you have a building boom the costs of both will skyrocket. What will happen is you'll end up with cheaply constructed housing made from the worst materials. And that's the good outcome.

The bad outcome is the rich who are looking for alternate investments will buy up all the labor and materials and build construction for themselves and will build rentals. That's the bad outcome.

The awful outcome, and likely outcome is that the labor and materials will be bought by newly formed real estate companies that will build rental property that is ugly and expensive - because they control the market more and more as they merge into 2 super landlord companys.