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

Post by Larrikin » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 8:44 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

Post by jahewson » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 8:47 PM UTC

gibolt wrote: post #353

TulliusCicero wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of upzoning is to allow for more housing to be built, not to literally force it upon unsuspecting property owners. If nobody wants to sell, nobody wants to sell. But eventually...

Houses in Atherton are already the size of apartment buildings. You could house 10-20 units in them without any change to the exterior. Change will happen, people would gladly pay a normal Bay Area house cost to get 1/10 of an Atherton house and live in that school district

Post by pkulak » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 8:49 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #745

spockz wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why is that? Maybe because children don’t play on the street at all in the city. So what does the fraction look when we take children playing outside and be healthy instead of just children? The chance remains the same but for the ones that survive there is a better quality of life.

Children do play on city streets, however one of the big differences is sight lines. Suburban streets tend to be dangerous due to visibility issues and often lack well connected sidewalks etc. A core reason for this is developers want to maximize the number of houses they can fit on a given plot of land which will often have odd shapes etc. So kids simply walking to a friends house are often in real danger.

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 8:50 PM UTC

xyzelement wrote: post #814

closeparen wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 marry…

Post by jahewson » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 8:54 PM UTC

HDThoreaun wrote: post #324

kevinburke wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 20% affordable component of Builder's Remedy means you need to propose at least 5 homes so one of them can be affordable. That said, a "missing middle" program is a really helpful thing to help cities get their Housing Element into compliance so if you think there is a place where this density would be helpful, send a comment to your city council and cc HousingElements@hcd.ca.gov.

It can also be 100% affordable to moderate income although that's almost assuredly less lucrative.