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

921–930 of 1001 posts

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

#921

Post by AdrianB1 »

whakim wrote: post #333
AdrianB1 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the relation between property rights and services? Paying for consumption versus having property rights is orthogonal.

The relationship is that private property only exists because of a system that enforces it and provides many of the services that lend it value. Whatever you think of this system, the two are deeply intertwined.

So the next logical step would be that property tax to be extended over all your property, not just real estate. We already pay property tax on cars in Europe, but not yet on bank accounts, clothes on our back, collection of family photos, etc. Probably with you guys, it's already on the way.

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

#922

Post by olivermarks »

'Here’s a brief rundown of cities’ housing element status by yimby activists who have been pressuring suburbs and cities throughout the Bay Area to abide by fair housing and re-zone their wealthy enclaves.'

Should really be 'Yes In Your Back Yard' activists, not 'yes in my back yard'. Few of these 'activists' want to be sardined in with new, noisy neighbors in reality.

How are the utilities infrastructures going to cope with all these extra water and effluent issues? California is pretty old and rickety underground, especially the SF sunset district. You can probably add smelly to noisy in these 15 minute car less city areas.

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

#923

Post by culi »

parkaboy wrote: post #485
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…

As yet anothor note in this thread about Houston (from a long-time Houstonian) and less in direct response to OP -- the lack of zoning bit is actually a bit more complicated than at first glance. While it's true there is no zoning, there are two other forces at work that exacerbate the sprawl issues here: (1) Minimum parking lot size requirements (as others mentioned). Commercial properties are required to have X amo…

> Minimum parking lot size requirements

This one irks me the most. we have 8 parking spots for every car and giant shopping malls are surrounded by parking lots that take up twice their size and are 50% empty for 95% of the time (more if you count night time)

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

#924

Post by zip1234 »

nlavezzo wrote: post #874
tshaddox wrote: post #860

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing about this would let a developer cut down your tree, build on your yard, etc. You just wouldn't be able to stop your neighbor from selling their property to a developer who might cut down trees and build things there. It's not unreasonable for you to have preferences about what your neighbors do with their property, just like it's not unreasonable for you to have preferences about which kinds of restaurants a…

Your neighbor doesn't currently have the right to do anything they want with their property though. They don't absolutely own it and have some kind of sovereign status. They can't turn it into a gas station or auto repair shop. They have the right to exclusive use of the land for the purpose of a single family dwelling built to certain specifications and abiding by various guidelines and regulations. When each neighb…

Buying a house and expecting nothing to change in one's neighborhood is completely unreasonable. Places change constantly.

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

#925

Post by zip1234 »

_ZeD_ wrote: post #812
nlavezzo wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

...and then you need a car because everything is literally miles away

Cities are not loud. Cars are loud!

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

#926

Post by zip1234 »

jp57 wrote: post #531
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…

> Remove zones alone, and HOAs will get areas into legally binding covenants that are also just as tough as their current zoning regulation. This. Houston has little or no zoning and is terribly sprawling and car-centric. Despite the lack of zoning, in most neighborhoods you can't just build whatever you want because of restrictive covenants. Developers build massive car-focused single-family-only developments and lo…

Houston also had minimum parking requirements. Also, TXDOT literally built highways through the city. It's not JUST zoning, but zoning is a large part of it. Houston does have way lower housing costs than other places though.

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

#927

Post by mikebenfield »

frankthedog wrote: post #882
genocidicbunny wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But the alternative isn’t none at all. The alternative is putting them somewhere better.

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

#928

Post by zip1234 »

kiba wrote: post #594
ipaddr wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answers are very uncomfortable Like cleaner air, safer streets, less traffic and a better place to raise a child and/or dog with backyards and privacy.

Streets are dangerous because of cars zipping around. Cars contribute to air pollution quality (until electrified) and noise quality. So, you ban cars from streets and allow only pedestrians and cyclists. Next, you allow local amenities to pop up so you don't feel the need to get a car out. The suburban pattern of development as it currently exists isn't the only way to facilitate the quality of life you're looking f…

Even electrified, tires shed loads of nasty particulates.

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

#929

Post by zip1234 »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #717
vineyardmike wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s in the deed so owning the property means you agree to follow the rules of the deed. The HOA can sue you for enforcement. At a high level, anyone can sue you to enforce a deed term, as long as the organization/person with an interest is around to do it and knows to do it. As an easy example, a long time ago people added racist stuff to deeds, but those family descendants no longer enforce it. HOAs don’t die like…

> you can try to get a living HOA removed from a deed I'd be curious about people's experiences and successes with this. Has anyone successfully pulled that off with a still-existing HOA?

You have to get all parties to agree to remove the restriction. I've heard of it happening.

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

#930

Post by opportune »

mateo411 wrote: post #504
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…

>Basically, shows that the State's tax difficulties are themselves the consequence of exclusion. I'm not sure what you mean by tax difficulties, if you mean the state has trouble raising revenue, that's certainly not the case. CA is running a large budget surplus right now. If they only relied on property tax it could be an issue, but they also have an income tax, so the revenue outlook in CA is pretty good right now…

The income+sales taxes are so high in CA partially because prop 13 reduces the amount of funding able to be gathered from property taxes. The reliance on income taxes, as the other reply mentions, means that CA gets streaks of extra tax from capital gains sometimes (leading to occasional budget surpluses).

IMO Prop 13 is at the root of a lot of dysfunction in CA, but personally I hate it because these extra income+sales taxes put a lot of tax burden on new residents and young professionals.

Post reply on HN