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

881–890 of 1001 posts

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

#881

Post by andrepd »

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…

> low traffic streets that are safe for kids to play around

Suburban streets are extremely dangerous to kids (in fact being hit by a driver is the leading cause of death to kids under 14).

You know what is safe? Walkable cities, pedestrianised streets, speed bumps wherever cars do drive inside the city, etc.

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

#882

Post by frankthedog »

genocidicbunny wrote: post #641
egberts1 wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

caldecott and hi-rise near freeways sounds like viable options. you make it sound like it is a bad thing.

Housing right next to highways is pretty bad. There's a huge amount of pollution, both particulate and noise, and depending on the layout, also light. Constant exposure to all of those will quickly lead to a variety of chronic conditions and generally make one miserable.

You’re right, better have none at all than something below your standards. /s

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

#883

Post by auctoritas »

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…

If people live in a low density area, we can assume they want to live in a low density area. So it makes perfect sense they would be against making their low density area high density. What is so uncomfortable about that?

To get at what your really implying though, what's wrong with maintaining some degree of cultural homogeneity in a neighborhood? It's a good thing in that it makes for high trust communities.

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

#885

Post by jimmydddd »

We've had these laws in NJ (USA) for many years now. The results are mixed. What basically happened is that if a several acre lot became available in a suburban town, the builder would petition to change the single familty home zoing to allow them to build a 100 unit condo buliding. My relatively small town had a population of about 7k people for many years, but then quickly shot up to 10k in just a few years due to many 100 unit buildings being built.

NJ is unusual in that we have many small towns. The large builders learned how to take advantage of these laws and built legal teams that can easily defeat the lawyers representing the small towns. And the small towns don't want to risk millions of taxpayer dollars on a litigation with a small chance of winning.

And the town always loses in the court of public opinion. The towns try to argue against forced over development, but the large builders change the narative to the town being racist/classist/greedy, etc. If you go to the K Hovnanian site and look at the map of their developments, NJ is full of red dots.

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

#886

Post by gowld »

jimmydddd wrote: post #885

We've had these laws in NJ (USA) for many years now. The results are mixed. What basically happened is that if a several acre lot became available in a suburban town, the builder would petition to change the single familty home zoing to allow them to build a 100 unit condo buliding. My relatively small town had a population of about 7k people for many years, but then quickly shot up to 10k in just a few years due to…

What's wrong with building housing for people who want a place to live?

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

#887

Post by mannerheim »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #642
ketzo wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you should be blindly downvoted for this -- I think it is a totally valid question, and one that the YIMBY movement needs to find a way to answer consistently. Personally, I would say that lots of low-density communities do remain low-density. And generally, that's because people don't want to move to them. But if you're a small town in Northern California, one of the most desirable places in the world,…

My answer comes from more of a Libertarian perspective it is quite simple. The community does not own the privately held land. If every landowner in the community opposed development, zoning would be unnecessary. If some individuals want to sell to Developers, zoning is just oppression of the minority by Democratic means. Being part of a democracy does not mean you get to control every single action that could impact…

The majority can also buy out someone who wants to sell to a developer. I know a neighborhood where everyone pitched in to buy land that would have been developed and ruined their view, depreciating property prices. But they put their money where their mouths were by buying the land themselves.

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

#888

Post by telotortium »

tinglymintyfrsh wrote: post #674
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…

PA has random pockets of new development, like on Alma St & Page Mill across from where AOL was. Mountain View has much more around the San Antonio Shopping Center where it's starting to look like SF. I'm wondering if there will be random developments that will sink property values because big city blight comes with : homeless camping, property crime, and so forth. Palo Alto is unique in California in that it is/was…

The south side of El Camino Real belongs to Stanford, not Palo Alto, so RV camping has always been allowed on that side of the street.

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

#889

Post by tomtheelder »

apozem wrote: post #680
telotortium wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By "high-rise", you must mean 5-over-1, right? I doubt anyone's going to build an actual high rise in the suburbs.

I mean, maybe it's a high rise. When the builder's remedy went into effect for Santa Monica, developers proposed 15- and 11-story apartment buildings [0]. There is a massive amount of demand for housing in California that is being choked by restrictive, ruinous zoning. Meeting that demand is going to take some big buildings. [0]: https://www.planetizen.com/news/2022/12/120313-first-full-bu...

Well that's a little different as Santa Monica is already full of high rises- it's definitely a city and not a suburb.

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

#890

Post by JasserInicide »

jvanderbot wrote: post #6

In principle, I hate this. Cities should be able to plan their own growth. In practice, coming from CA, I am 100% onboard. It's a mess of red tape and bullshit lawsuits.

>Cities should be able to plan their own growth.

What US city has actually done this though? More often than not, their councils are stacked with NIMBY types that let growing pains fester forever.

Post reply on HN