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

#901

Post by slibhb » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 10:29 PM UTC

> That all changed with laws mainly passed by state senators Nancy Skinner (D - Berkeley) and Scott Wiener (D - San Francisco) in the 2010s to update the RHNA requirements. Cities now had to zone for a variety of equitable impacts, most importantly putting housing in affluent neighborhoods, away from toxic industry and in ways that were feasible for development. So for example, SoCal cities loved to zone for apartments on top of active, popular shopping centers that would never be torn down. This was no longer permitted.

> And Wiener’s law SB 828 reformed RHNA so that the numbers had to more accurately gauge for population demand, lack of vacant housing and household formation which increased housing requirements tremendously. Places like Beverly Hills went from being required to build 3 homes over 8 years in the previous RHNA cycle to 3,000 homes now post-SB 828.

As someone who is generally anti-woke, stuff like this is sobering. Laws drafted by woke politicians aimed at achieving woke buzzwords ("equitable impacts") led to something really excellent.

A great argument for "the cunning of reason".

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

#902

Post by veec_cas_tant » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 10:31 PM UTC

hcurtiss wrote: post #634

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? You mean like all the medium-density neighborhoods of San Francisco? American R-1 suburbs are a nightmare for kids, and that's why you never see any kids outside there, tell me how this: h…

I live in a suburban R-1 neighborhood in Oregon and my kids play basketball, ride bikes, and roller skate in the street literally every day with boatloads of other kids. If that's your vision of a nightmare, I fear we're not going to agree on any of this.

I'm seriously shocked by how many people value the idea that kids can play in the street. Why not a park or other recreation area? I get that it isn't entirely common in the United States to build walkable parks but that is a United States problem, not a city problem. Cities built for living should offer much better alternatives to children than playing in the street.

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

#903

Post by BurningFrog » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 10:32 PM UTC

thegrimmest wrote: post #240

toast0 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cities should be able to plan their own growth. They are able to plan their own growth, but they aren't able to refuse to grow. Or at least, not through zoning; being located where potable water or sewer/septic are at capacity is probably still valid to restrict new building.

Why not? if a low density community wants to plan to remain low density, who are the rest of us to stop them?

Counterquestion:

If a landowner in a low density community wants to build high density housing on their property, why should the city be allowed to stop that?

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

#904

Post by runarberg » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 10:37 PM UTC

chrisfinazzo wrote: post #811

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?

Whats wrong with having rural areas close to the city proper? In Berlin (one of Europe’s largest cities) you don’t need to go more the 10 km from Neukölln (one of it’s densest neighborhoods) before you hit the country side. In Seattle the Snoqualmie River and the Duvall valley is a beautiful countryside only 20 miles from the city center. Why would you want to sacrifice that for a sub-optimal housing sprawl with horrible carbon footprint?

For people that like the quiet living they can live in a nearby town (Duvall has around 10,000 people living in the town), the density of the town means you’ll probably be close to a grocery store and other amenities, and probably even a bus line or a commuter train to the nearby city if you need to commute to work. Meanwhile the countryside is open for everyone (including city dwellers) to enjoy.

It feels like sacrificing this for boring monotonous suburban sprawl (as is tradition in California) benefits nobody while ruining a good thing many have.

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

#905

Post by veec_cas_tant » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 10:40 PM UTC

maxsilver wrote: post #422

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…

> With no constraints on construction will there be a small boom in new development, tearing down virgin forest in order to make empty developments? Probably? I live in Michigan, which (with the exception of two spots) has no meaningful limits on construction. Even the cities that technically have-and-enforce zoning, waive all the rules constantly anytime a developer asks. And yes -- it means developers can build alm…

> Unfortunately, it does not mean you get lower cost of housing

I think that I'm missing something here unless there happens to be an infinite supply of people looking to move to your city.

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

#906

Post by mperham » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 10:45 PM UTC

988747 wrote: post #706

fragmede wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially when they fight with each other, as neighbors do. The wealthy aren't always a monolithic block of undifferentiated piles of money so, not that I know what the future holds, but imagine you've been squabbling with your neighbor for decades; you've always wanted to move back east. What better giant finger to that neighbor than selling your multi-acre estate to be replaced by a 30 or 100-unit apartment comple…

> What better giant finger to that neighbor than selling your multi-acre estate to be replaced by a 30 or 100-unit apartment complex? You really do not realize how big (or small, rather) apartment complexes are. 100-unit building is the size of 6-7 single family homes (or maybe 3 McMansions), and maybe twice as high. It would barely be noticeable in such neighborhood. See this for example: https://ctexaminer.com/2021…

It's not really the size of the building, it's the size of the parking lot and the resulting traffic. That's what *everyone* hates.

With parking minimums of 2 spots per unit, your standard 800 sq ft apartment requires another 600 sq ft of parking. And units can be stacked relatively cheaply, parking can't.

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

#907

Post by c0nsumer » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 10:45 PM UTC

yamtaddle wrote: post #619

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…

Old narrow-street, maybe an alley in the back, grid-layout suburbs with the odd block corner zoned commercial and all-neighborhood-streets routes to all kinds of businesses and parks and libraries and such are a whole different beast from the twisty-road car-dependent mazes of post-70s suburbia. And they're so much damn nicer. Too bad no-one builds them anymore.

We moved from the latter to the former about a year ago, and it's SO MUCH BETTER. The low traffic residential grid roads make great walking and cycling (for quite long distances) and the closer proximity to neighbors seems to result in friendlier people. I'm amazed at what a different feeling it is compared to our old McMansion/Condo stuff where people kept to their boxes and didn't seem to know how to politely interact.

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

#908

Post by rightbyte » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 10:45 PM UTC

veec_cas_tant wrote: post #898

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.

I'm not sure I agree that a high quality of life requires playing in the streets. Perhaps an issue is that many rural areas lack adequate pedestrian pathing and recreational areas? Maybe an even larger issue is that parents generally feel unsafe leaving their kids alone outside.

Probably bikes right? Children surely are doing less biking in cities per capita compared to suburban areas.

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

#909

Post by veec_cas_tant » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 10:55 PM UTC

mancerayder wrote: post #725

crooked-v wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of high-density buildings that don't require 'light sleepers'. I live in one right now. The only sound I hear from other units is if we both have windows open; otherwise it's dead quiet to the point that I had to put in some rugs to muffle echoes from walking around on the tiled floors.

I live in the most modern and luxurious of modern luxury buildings and while most people don't complain about noise, I'm jolted awake by door slamming in the hallway, I can hear parties two floors up and music (bass specifically) travels effortlessly through all the modern concrete floor and non-concrete walls all the same. It depends more on the neighbors than the construction. Nothing will stop a modern subwoofer.…

There is an epidemic of "luxury" units that are really just poorly constructed buildings with a fancy stove and granite countertop. Modern buildings will have noise leakage via doors and windows for obvious reasons, but should not be transmitting anything but extreme noise through floors and walls. If you can really hear noises two floors away, I'm guessing your building wasn't built with noise in mind OR the party goers have blasted their eardrums too many times. Regardless, I'm surprised the landlords haven't handled this already if they are charging luxury prices.

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

#910

Post by civilized » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 11:00 PM UTC

spockz wrote: post #610

SamBam wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and low traffic streets that are safe for kids to play around Actually, suburban streets are significantly more dangerous than urban streets, in terms of number of children killed, as a fraction of both population and miles driven. > Motor vehicle traffic was the leading mechanism of unintentional injury death among children aged 5–13, with the rural rate (3.1) twice as high as the urban rate (1.5) > Motor vehicle…

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.

The disconnect between city folk and rural/suburban folk is wild. We've got comments below saying (paraphrased, my interpretation) "well of course kids play in the streets" followed by "well not literally, I mean on the sidewalks, who on earth would literally play in the street where cars drive".

My neighbors have a basketball hoop facing their street. They consider the street, the street that cars drive on, a basketball court. And the neighborhood I grew up in was dotted with cal-de-sacs. Which, again, are streets that cars drive on, and all of which were baseball diamonds by kids' God-given right.

Half of you know that I literally mean every word of what I said and half of you are equally certain I don't.