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

#831

Post by scythe » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 8:37 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

>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.

This is not a problem in cities in Asia. It was not a problem before the '60s. It is still not a problem in the dense downtowns of a few small American cities that have avoided the modern homelessness crisis. It is a specifically recent American major city phenomenon that nobody wants to accept as the norm.

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

#832

Post by seanmcdirmid » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 8:37 PM UTC

Analemma_ wrote: post #479

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.

You’re going to need to do more than just toss off a scaremongering phrase like “look to Houston” with no elaboration, particularly when the replies are already explaining that its approach to zoning has been rewarded with much more tractable prices. What, specifically, is wrong with Houston, and is it worse than the affordability disaster that is most of California?

Technically not most of California, since population is focused into a few urban areas and otherwise you have vast amounts of nothing if you actually see the state.

Houston is a huge urban/semi-urban sprawl, the kind that used to be popular in LA a few decades ago. Dallas is similar, Austin gets that way outside of its downtown, San Antonio does also but at least has a much more interesting urban core. It always seemed you get what you pay for in Houston, there isn’t anything wrong with that, but many people don’t want it.

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

#833

Post by fmajid » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 8:38 PM UTC

San Francisco's housing element is a sham, but their NIMBY-pandering supervisors have successfully kicked the can down 4 years. By then, the city will have gone sufficiently down Detroit's path of urban decay that there won't be any developers left willing to build there.

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

#834

Post by rayiner » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 8:38 PM UTC

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? The answers are very uncomfortable.

That’s just urbanists smearing people with innuendo about racism to advance unrelated policy goals. It’s actually ironic, because one of the major population trends right now is “black flight” to the suburbs.

People, especially families, like low density suburban zoning because it’s convenient. I live in a pre-zoning code suburb with houses packed tightly together. People are always fighting over parking spots, contractor trucks can block people into their parking spots or block the road, etc. There’s a lot of retired people, and they complain about families with young kids moving in due to the noise. (And these are white and white adjacent kids too.) My parents refused to move into the subdivision, and instead moved nearby to a 1 acre plot surrounded by trees where they didn’t have to interact with their neighbors.

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

#835

Post by HDThoreaun » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 8:40 PM UTC

fosk wrote: post #822

TedShiller wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not short anything. Other states have housing.

Somehow we have grown a whole generation of people that thinks they are entitled to live wherever they want, when that has never been the case in world’s history. I too want a penthouse in Manhattan, who do I need to mail to demand I am given a penthouse in Manhattan? California clearly doesn’t have the capacity to serve the current population, let alone an increased population. All services are 3rd world quality, be…

Somehow we have grown a whole generation of people that thinks they are entitled to tell their neighbors what they are allowed to build. I too want everyone around me to have a one story house so I can look over them from my balcony, but guess what, that would impede on their property rights. California absolutely has the capacity to serve the current population, they just need to fix the shit show that is their housing policy.

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

#836

Post by rootusrootus » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 8:41 PM UTC

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #677

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?

If you're going down the slippery slope of libertarianism (on a strange collective/communist level), then who are the rest of us to stop an individual property owner from selling his lot to someone that wants to build 5+1 multiunit housing? So either you go right wing and you have no right to restrict developers on land they legitimately procure Or you go left wing and you have no right to impose (?accidentally...ish…

Of course it's all a scale and there are infinite points along that scale. Wanting democracy at the lowest possible level doesn't preclude wanting to avoid going all the way to the "every man for himself" option. I guarantee some folks want it to be dictated at the federal level, even.

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

#837

Post by Spooky23 » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 8:43 PM UTC

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…

The answer is that people benefit from stability, both financially and socially.

Single and duplex zoning was a great deal for cities and close suburbs because they are operationally efficient - less services are required; fewer parks, fewer schools, fewer calls for fire and police service. It’s a good deal for people because financially it has been historically better to own a building and land vs rent or buy into coops.

For existing, pre-1990 low density urban neighborhoods, retrofitting medium density housing is usually a shitshow. Why?

- The areas of were detached houses that usually have yards, no parks, fire stations, etc.

- Because of healthcare and tax policy, it’s very difficult to run the types of small businesses that are needed to support an urban lifestyle. Boutiques, restaurants/bars and similar

- Because there are no local amenities, people still need cars, and there’s rarely enough parking to meet demand.

- Schools are tied to geography, and changes in school assignments are impactful and traumatic to families.

- Developers usually get tax credits for including street level retail, but have no financial incentive to rent them as tax policy pays them to do nothing.

If you look at functioning urban environments like NYC, you see it all over the place. I grew up in Brooklyn and Queens. As small retail fades away, major big box scaled retail moves in. The neighborhood 20-40k sq ft grocery stores of my childhood (Key Food, Finest, A&P, ShopRite) are being displaced by bodegas at the low end and big developments on the high end - which drive demand for cars and exclude people relying on transit.

You can only fix this stuff with fairly radical change, that will be very painful for lots of stakeholders.

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

#838

Post by rootusrootus » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 8:43 PM UTC

sonar_un wrote: post #410

andys627 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I intuitively agree but have learned that "Cities should be able to plan their own growth." is just too simplistic.

City planning is much too simplistic for the metropolises of California. Region planning is more apt.

The other lesson might be that 'city' is too broad a term. Some cities are standalone, some are just arbitrary boundaries within a metropolis. Maybe the latter should be eliminated and replaced with a metropolis-wide city.

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

#839

Post by seanmcdirmid » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 8:43 PM UTC

gumby wrote: post #107

This 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…

SROs went out of style throughout the USA because they provided poor returns for the property used and were a huge hassle for whoever was running them, not to mention being magnates for crime. It’s sad, since an SRO is better than a tent. The socialization of lower tier housing (via HUD) also played a role as SROs didn’t really fit what was expected once the government got involved.

China has a lot of options for cheap housing, none at all legal, but rule of law isn’t really a thing there so just keep things quiet. In Beijing, you can rent a windowless sub-basement room for a few hundred kuai a month, mold is an issue, but it’s better than other options. Waitresses also often crash on the floors of the restaurants they are working in, so the windows are all blinded over in cardboard after closing time. This is all working poor, it is really hard to be a vagabond in China because the social safety net just isn’t there for it (and you can’t just crash under an overpass because the police are already in to that).

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

#840

Post by dang » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 8:44 PM UTC

steveklabnik wrote: post #737

dang wrote: post #726

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've consed "Some" onto the headline in the hope that this makes it more accurate. This is a confusing situation! confusing to me at least.

You could go with something that's more technically correct, if not immediately more clear. This would at least give people the opportunity to google the terms and learn about them themselves. "Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow"

Ok, let's try it. Thanks!