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

91–100 of 1001 posts

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

#91

Post by thepasswordis »

dylan604 wrote: post #76
thepasswordis wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>no one wants a neighbor in a residential zone keeping broken-down trash cars out in the open. Do those neighbors care what I want?

so let me ask from a point of trying to see it the other way, why do you want broken-down trash cars out in the open of your house? if you're just playing devil's advocate, then whatever, but if you truly want trash cars, I truly want to hear why

Because don't feel like I have to justify what i want to do on my own property to anybody except my wife.

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

#92

Post by r00fus »

david2ndaccount wrote: post #33

From my observation, these new housing developments are built without adequate parking and without improvements to the streets, leading to congested messes and worsening already bad traffic. How people can see this as a positive is unknown to me.

This is an important element - if developers don't have to take into account the infrastructure needs of their buildings, then won't it just lead to the tragedy of the commons?

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

#93

Post by nine_k »

thepasswordis wrote: post #58
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they don't. These exact sorts of "well nobody likes" arguments are why the bureaucracy has the reach it does and CA has the problems it does. Yes, society probably won't crumble if we cave to your whining and regulate your pet issue of the minute but regulating in this manner is like littering in the park, if everyone does it the park is ruined. If people are poisoning the groundwater or creating other "off their…

>Yes, society probably won't crumble if we cave to your whining and regulate your pet issue of the minute I disagree, and I think this sort of nonsense is a cornerstone of why society is crumbling. People don't look at their homes as homes they look at them as temporary investments that they hope to sell to somebody else for more money in the future. People don't end up investing (in the societal, emotional sense) in…

If housing ceases to be a relatively safe investment vehicle, what will become it?

I dislike the idea of home-as-investment as much as the next guy, but I'd like to think about some consequences of houses stopping to be an investment, Japan-style.

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

#94

Post by whimsicalism »

m00x wrote: post #22
LewisVerstappen wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> reduce homelessness Is the homeless problem due to the cost of housing? Or is it moreso due to fentanyl?

Homelessness is mostly due to lack of housing, and fentanyl crisis mostly due to addiction. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2356643-we-can-reduce-h...

Stats like these are only true because the general public and policymakers/NGOs mean completely different populations of people when discussing "the homeless."

Private market housing in SF will not get most of the very visible & mentally ill off of the streets, this likely requires services and some level of compulsion.

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

#95

Post by nlavezzo »

thepasswordis wrote: post #5

Wow that's great news! The level of bureaucratic creep that has been imposed on property owners is actually unbelievable to me. I obviously understand some regulations (you can't built a chemical processing plant in a residential neighborhood, obviously), but cities have creeped themselves into all-powerful overseers. Most cities now have the power to tell you what kind of house you can build, how you can paint it, h…

> If you don't want to deal with living near other people, move to the country.

The reverse could also be said - if you don't want to deal with people deciding together that they want their community to have certain guidelines, move to the country. You can do pretty much whatever you want in rural areas without significantly impacting your neighbors.

People living together in a small area do get to decide together what they want that area to be like within reason. Creating some guidelines to create a desirable, pleasant and safe environment for them and their families is totally reasonable and has been the historical norm for most of the history of civilization.

Of course things can get out of hand and over-reaching. If the people decide together to change it though, they can. I don't think the solution is just nuking all zoning regulations from orbit.

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

#96

Post by michael1999 »

kqr2 wrote: post #48

How would the builder's remedy work in a place like Atherton if the homeowners form a pact and refuse to sell to any developers? E.g. if Marc Andreessen ( https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/marc-andre... ) and Steph Curry ( https://therealdeal.com/2023/01/29/steph-curry-shoots-his-ni... ) form a coalition with other residents then they can effectively keep the city down zoned even if builder's remedy i…

They can try. It only takes one defector to cash a cheque. Or bankruptcy, divorce, general orneriness ...

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

#97

Post by danenania »

mschuster91 wrote: post #19
thepasswordis wrote: post #5

Wow that's great news! The level of bureaucratic creep that has been imposed on property owners is actually unbelievable to me. I obviously understand some regulations (you can't built a chemical processing plant in a residential neighborhood, obviously), but cities have creeped themselves into all-powerful overseers. Most cities now have the power to tell you what kind of house you can build, how you can paint it, h…

> how you can landscape it, what kinds of cars you can keep in your own driveway These two at least make some sense. The former, landscaping restrictions, can be used to prevent people from creating groundwater issues or flood risks, and the latter... no one wants a neighbor in a residential zone keeping broken-down trash cars out in the open. Some things have to be regulated even in a relatively free society because…

It makes perfect sense to me to regulate things that could potentially have an adverse effect on others that they can't easily opt out of. Loud noise in the middle of the night? Sure. Anything that creates pollution? Sure. Unleashed pit bulls that devour the neighborhood children? Depends on which children, but otherwise banning this makes sense.

But rules based on "it doesn't look nice"? That seems both subjective and ridiculous. If someone has garbage on their property and it's blowing into yours, that gives you a right to complain. But if you just think their property is ugly for whatever reason, well, maybe don't look at it? What made people think they should have any say over the visual appearance of what someone else owns?

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

#98

Post by thepasswordis »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #90
thepasswordis wrote: post #5

Wow that's great news! The level of bureaucratic creep that has been imposed on property owners is actually unbelievable to me. I obviously understand some regulations (you can't built a chemical processing plant in a residential neighborhood, obviously), but cities have creeped themselves into all-powerful overseers. Most cities now have the power to tell you what kind of house you can build, how you can paint it, h…

> If I want to collect old VW busses and park them in the front yard, I don't care what effect this has on my neighbors property value. This is my home. If you don't want to deal with living near other people, move to the country. Many (most?) of these types of rules are imposed by HOAs made up of property owners, not the city.

You should read your city's code. Most cities have now adopted the same restrictions that used to be exclusive to HOAs.

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

#99

Post by epistasis »

kqr2 wrote: post #48

How would the builder's remedy work in a place like Atherton if the homeowners form a pact and refuse to sell to any developers? E.g. if Marc Andreessen ( https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/marc-andre... ) and Steph Curry ( https://therealdeal.com/2023/01/29/steph-curry-shoots-his-ni... ) form a coalition with other residents then they can effectively keep the city down zoned even if builder's remedy i…

Eventually, people die, and sometimes the children were not part of the monopoly...

I do wonder if anti-trust could be applied against such a "don't sell" pact, especially if it was successful enough to capture an entire town. Probably not, but that sort of anti-competitive behavior should most definitely be illegal, with stiff penalties for those who participate.

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

#100

Post by patientplatypus »

This makes me happy.

If you want to end homelessness in California build affordable housing everywhere and hire the homeless to be go-fors on construction projects.

There is absolutely no reason that there should be sub five story buildings in downtown San Francisco when there are people living on the street.

Imagine if people could start building these cool buildings from AI: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-01-31/architect... but for large scale residential housing. You could have a whole new generation of architectural firms building the future of urban living.

Oh and we just figured out how to make Roman concrete https://www.popsci.com/science/roman-concrete/.

You have no idea how exciting this is.

Post reply on HN