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

801–810 of 1001 posts

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

#801

Post by panzagl »

jimnotgym wrote: post #516
fnordpiglet wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Truth is people want to live in a community of the character they choose when they moved into that community. The high density housing community seems to think everyone just needs an efficiency unit in a Soviet style housing block and anyone else is an entitled NIMBY. What the person said was developers don’t care about the community they’re building into. Loosening of community rules means they can move in start bui…

As an aside... I find it fun that people in the US use the term 'Victorian' to describe an era. I like the idea of naming an era in a Republic after a foreign monarch. Incidentally, if it were 100 years old it would be Georgian . Vitoria died in 1901

Georgian refers to George I-III here, so ends in the 1780's.

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

#802

Post by parasense »

Ah good ol' California!

The home of ironies like "Let's build affordable housing" and simultaneously "not in my back yard". You can replace "affordable housing" with other things, like improved electrical grid power lines, or water storage reservoirs, and so on... and so forth...

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

#803

Post by eweise »

vineyardmike wrote: post #603
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…

> 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…

My brother bought a house in Fremont next to an apartment building. Had nothing but trouble with the neighbors; loud noise, trash around, tons of traffic in front of his house. He eventually had to move.

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

#804

Post by CalRobert »

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

Virtually anywhere in the entire country?

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

#805

Post by Ztynovovk »

rcme wrote: post #399
raldi wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Multifamily housing is not analogous to a garbage dump. "The study finds that the upzoning increased property values by 15-23%" http://theadvocatecornell.com/2022/02/03/does-upzoning-work/

Again, I'm not saying that multi-family housing is akin to a garbage dump. I fully support more housing. But, the state officials making these decisions have no incentive to ensure that they're preserving the land's value. Any system that doesn't provide incentives for the decision makers to make good decisions ends terribly.

[dead]

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

#806

Post by lamontcg »

dahfizz wrote: post #716
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…

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.

San Fransisco left behind "uncrowded town" quite a lot time ago.

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

#807

Post by zzzeek »

jackson1442 wrote: post #773
zzzeek wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

thanks for the patronizing, very mindful! not had your stuff stolen then , I gather ?

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

#808

Post by Tiktaalik »

zajio1am wrote: post #585
rnk wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that mysterious why people want this. For people of means, they want to preserve the quality of life that they see in having mostly single family homes and in the past keep it full of white people with money, hopefully the only whites thing has faded. Of course racism was a core issue in how these exclusions panned out in the US. If I'm in a city and and I own one of these houses, it's clear economically tha…

There is evidence that opposition to new construction is not only from home-owners, but also from renters, due to economic ignorance: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2022/11/th...

I think the renters are often acting rationally, given the fact that new construction is so overwhelmingly often directed at their own neighbourhoods where they currently live in affordable apartments. Accordingly no real surprise that someone would act out of self interest to oppose being evicted.

So rarely if ever is new apartment development targeted at a mansion district, and I've never seen an apartment dweller oppose that concept. I don't know why they would and I wouldn't expect them to.

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

#809

Post by harvey9 »

kiba wrote: post #581
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…

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? Cars are currently two tons noise and pollution machine. It's no wonder why people feel unsafe around them. You could restrict traffic to only bicycles and pedestrians combined with mixed zo…

Seems like a non sequitur

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

#810

Post by JasserInicide »

hibikir wrote: post #447
softsound wrote: post #364

Looking at other countries like Japan with like barely any zoning laws, this looks great, I hope it leads to more mixed cities again and more walkable/liveable areas like before WW2. It is funny that America land of the free had so many restrictions, building up hundreds of zoning laws across the country did a lot of bad and led to a lot of urban sprawl leading to very poor cities and towns that literally cannot pay…

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…

>What is making people want to restrict their neighborhood to extremely low density suburbs?

Because it's actually what many people want. They want a house in the quiet suburbs that they can sell in 30 years for much more than it's worth. This is obviously all because nearly everyone alive that can vividly remember a time before WW2 are dead. All they know are car-centric architecture. And we all know how much people love change.

Post reply on HN