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

#811

Post by chrisfinazzo » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 8:24 PM UTC

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…

If I can make a nuanced point...

Suburban sprawl is fine and coming from NJ, going to a place where it doesn't exist feels very strange.

My brother lives just outside Charlotte - outside of the airport and city proper, you hit what I would consider rural areas within roughly 20 minutes.

It's a thing...I guess?

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

#812

Post by _ZeD_ » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 8:24 PM UTC

nlavezzo wrote: post #511

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…

> 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…

...and then you need a car because everything is literally miles away

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

#813

Post by arrosenberg » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 8:25 PM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #757

arrosenberg wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Overriding local, more direct democracy (in theory) could be anti-democratic in my view. Your theory is bunk, that's my point. What pits people against each other are exclusionary housing laws that the wealthy use to keep poor people separate from them, not the words we use to describe that choice. > But you can make cases for both. For every "We don't like the zoning because it keeps the place expensive" there's "…

> Your theory is bunk, that's my point. What part of the theory is "bunk"? Are you suggesting that the less local a government is the more democratic it is? Please also note that I said could because I'm not making a strong claim for this to always be true. > What pits people against each other are exclusionary housing laws that the wealthy use to keep poor people separate from them, not the words we use to describe…

I’m explicitly stating that the fact its more local doesn’t make it more democratic per se. A small group of people who can effectively vote down the majority are not being democratic.

> The state should not be able to supersede local authority for local concerns, it's authoritarian.

Absolutely I include the suburbs I grew up in. The rich keep the middle out, and the middle keep the poor out. Not that hard to fathom.

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

#814

Post by xyzelement » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 8:25 PM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #403

xyzelement wrote: post #361

I am not an expert in California but I don't love this concept in general. Here in New York, the Governor is attempting to drive higher housing density in certain places regardless of what the local people think and want. I think this is a sort of obvious effort at a form of gerrymandering - if the assumption is that the residents of higher-density dwellings are more likely to vote Democrat on average vs the current…

The local people in every place want to live in rural towns 5 minutes from the big city. It’s built into the human psyche. The problem is it’s geometrically impossible. So it comes down to how important you think “finders keepers” is - do the people who got there first have the right to lock everyone else out forever? However justified they may be in wanting this, it’s hard to deny that the costs imposed on everyone…

// So it comes down to how important you think “finders keepers” is - do the people who got there first have the right to lock everyone else out forever?

I get the point you're making and it's not illogical, it's just what do you prioritize? In many situations honoring the existing relationships and the wishes of people in it is the more humane choice.

When your dad married your mom, he locked everyone out from marrying her. We honor the exclusivity of their relationship even if there are like 5 single guys in town. We don't force your parents to let 5 additional men into the relationship because it's not fair that they are locked out.

Why should your dad have some special status with your mom - why "finders keepers?" But in reality, we honor that because we understand that forcing equity here would be horrific.

Obviously I am making assumptions about your fam and that's just an example, and obviously your marriage is an even more intimate topic than the nature of your town, but you can see the continuum I think. If I upended my life to live in a certain type of town, it's very turbulent to have that town completely change by government decree.

Also - there's no finders keepers here. Like 20% of my town is families that moves from the city during covid. There's constant turnover as older folks move out and younger families move in. What stays constant is the nature of town - those who want that nature move here, those who don't, stay in NYC.

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

#815

Post by sleepybrett » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 8:26 PM UTC

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…

I dunno, I feel like things like heavy manufacturing, smokestack etc. Should have their zoning controlled, everything else.. go nuts. I just don't want to breathe emissions.

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

#816

Post by ethanbond » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 8:26 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #635

grumple wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zoning is also used to preserve the character of a neighborhood. Unfortunately, that typically includes racial character. The US has a long history of zoning as a proxy for redlining and racism [0]. 0. https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2021/06/17/...

Character is the worst part of any area. They are preserving old buildings that cannot be made energy efficient without a large investment, while making that investment illegal as well. All in name of preserving a building just because it is 'old'. Sure there are a few buildings that are historic and should be preserved, but the vast majority are only old, and have no other historic value.

This position would be a lot more popular if 99% of new development wasn't hideous beyond words and an affront to human dignity.

People want to preserve old stuff because (and only when) it's beautiful, but there's no reason we couldn't and shouldn't be building beautiful stuff today!

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

#817

Post by parineum » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 8:28 PM UTC

hadlock wrote: post #766

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…

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

> Many of the big trees are on public right of ways. Nothing is happening to them.

*Until the city decides they want to change it

That's why people want to ensrine in law that those trees don't change. They don't trust the city to maintain homeostasis for the duration of their residency.

What happens when people want to build a new apartment building but those trees are too big to safely build next to?

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

#818

Post by JAlexoid » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 8:28 PM UTC

HWR_14 wrote: post #657

steveklabnik wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This SimCity style thinking about zoning is just too simplistic. Yes, absolutely, nobody wants to live next to a smelter. But not every commercial property is a smelter. People love to live near corner stores, yet that is "commercial."

The smelter is "Industrial" not "Commercial". At least in SimCity abstractions. Usually commercial and some level of manufacturing overlap in zoning, but smelters are in a different category.

A tailor and laundry are technically industrial use, yet I wouldn't mind having a taylor or a laundry service nearby.

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

#819

Post by chrisfinazzo » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 8:28 PM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #719

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…

> Much better than suburbia in my opinion. I think a lot of people just assume that the only kind of suburbia that exists is endless tract housing as far as the eye can see. I'm absolutely positive that does happen, but I've never lived in a suburban neighborhood that fit such a description. We have stores. We have business parks here and there. Heck, we even have public transit. This is probably why there is such a…

If you find your way to my other comment ("suburban sprawl") this is largely what it looked like to me when I visited my brother. The developments aren't very large and there is roughly nothing around them.

Contrast to NJ, where the NYC suburbs extend way outside Midtown and the city limits.

As a result, it is very rare to feel like you are in the middle of nowhere.

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

#820

Post by scythe » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 8:30 PM UTC

nlavezzo wrote: post #511

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…

> 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 answers are very uncomfortable.

> but implying that all of these homeowners are primarily driven by prejudice

This is a good example of why being coy rather than explicit is bad for productive discussion. Bigotry of its various forms is certainly one possible uncomfortable answer to the question. But there are others, like crime, or the effect of local property-value-to-enrollment ratio on school quality, or plenty of other problems that systematically occur in American cities.

NIMBYism is by no means the exclusive domain of homeowners in low-density neighborhoods. Even when it comes from them, they are often concerned with developments that are not actually in their neighborhoods — their trees and yards not being in jeopardy. There's a fundamental distrust of the overall process of development that animates anti-growth sentiments not only in middle-class neighborhoods but also in, for example, the Mission.