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

#951

Post by acdha » Wed, Feb 01, 2023, 2:35 AM UTC

opportune wrote: post #933

acdha wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point about moving is really important: there are a ton of boomers sitting in houses which are much larger than they need without children living at home but in many cases they're doing exactly what the system incentivizes. Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) can help somewhat if they have enough space and want to get in the landlord business (or have family who need it) but really we need to make it easy for people…

On one hand I’m sympathetic to the individualist argument that it’s unfair for these people to have to vacate their 30+ year residences just because a bunch of people moved to their area. On the other, I agree that it’s ridiculous someone can be paying 10-20% what their neighbor pays in property taxes, and that this causes an inefficient allocation of resources. If we ever want to solve this we IMO need some kind of…

A lot of this also comes back to the “just build more housing” point: an 80 year old probably doesn't want to have to be responsible for a house, but if the choice is considerably more expensive or moving away from everyone & everything they've known for 40+ years they'll do it. If there were reasonably-sized options nearby, they'd probably have a different answer.

Where I live now has a couple of nice options for aging in place – dedicated 55+ apartment building, with government support for low-income; and a co-op where the units are smaller but they have more shared space. A lot of older neighbors have spoken glowingly the latter because it's all ages and it since they see their neighbors more they don't feel lonely the way someone in a detached suburban home might. I wish we'd build a lot more stuff like that where someone has an option which doesn't break the bank and avoids those other downsides.

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

#952

Post by wesleyd » Wed, Feb 01, 2023, 2:51 AM UTC

civilized wrote: post #910

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.

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 bask…

On my first trip to the US, early 2000s, my business partner and I were slowly driving around (I think) Palo Alto on a Saturday admiring the houses and he suddenly asked “WHERE ARE ALL THE CHILDREN?”

I couldn’t unsee it. This pristine suburbia, optimized for families, perfect weather, but no kids to be seen. It seemed so weird to us who’d grown up mostly outdoors. In Ireland.

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

#953

Post by frosted-flakes » Wed, Feb 01, 2023, 2:56 AM UTC

hcurtiss wrote: post #598

webkike wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

High rises are not dystopian. What is dystopian is people living in fucking tents

Any bets on whether eliminating zoning has any effect on the number of "people living in fucking tents?" In my experience, the people in tents aren't waiting with a down payment that's a few tens of thousands short of market. I think you're right that the solution here is being driven by homelessness. I also think it's more progressive wishful thinking.

This is all about making housing affordable. Ignore the 20% affordable housing figurine in the article; that's just a bandaid measure that doesn't address the root issue, which is that housing is too expensive. Increasing the supply of housing will decrease the cost of housing, for everyone. So yes, it will have an effect, but since there is such a high demand for housing and since it takes a long time to build it, it will be a while before that effect is felt. And if the growth in housing isn't sustained, then this will just be a blip.

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

#954

Post by anticensor » Wed, Feb 01, 2023, 3:04 AM UTC

fragsworth wrote: post #250

singlow wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A little game theory may come to play though. If the whole city booms and just my neighborhood stays single-family large lot, my price/sqft may increase drastically, and I may get better return on any improvements I do to my property based on my investment profile. If instead my neighborhood is converted to apartments or high-density condos, I might not have the capital to take advantage of those opportunities but my…

No, it's almost entirely short-sighted, at least in terms of economics. First, I've never heard of anyone being forced to sell, unless there's some truly huge and necessary infrastructure development. You are generally offered some money by a developer and you personally decide whether or not to take it. Sometimes people can be stubborn and there are plenty of examples of large high-rises built around tiny structures…

> I've never heard of anyone being forced to sell

Maybe not in the USA but certain countries have a special emergency nationalisation procedure that has payment first, skips the consent and leaves the challenge to after-the-fact.

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

#955

Post by nemo44x » Wed, Feb 01, 2023, 3:20 AM UTC

jimnotgym wrote: post #516

fnordpiglet wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Truth is people want to live in a community of the character they choose when they moved into that community. The high density housing community seems to think everyone just needs an efficiency unit in a Soviet style housing block and anyone else is an entitled NIMBY. What the person said was developers don’t care about the community they’re building into. Loosening of community rules means they can move in start bui…

As an aside... I find it fun that people in the US use the term 'Victorian' to describe an era. I like the idea of naming an era in a Republic after a foreign monarch. Incidentally, if it were 100 years old it would be Georgian . Vitoria died in 1901

In the USA, many “revival” style homes were built in the 19th and early 20th century. It wouldn’t be uncommon to find a Victorian next to a Georgian next to a Tutor. But they are just styles.

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

#956

Post by anticensor » Wed, Feb 01, 2023, 3:33 AM UTC

AdrianB1 wrote: post #921

whakim wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cars are registered property, just like houses. Clothes and family photos are not. How would you tax them without registering titles for them?

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

#957

Post by epistasis » Wed, Feb 01, 2023, 3:34 AM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #777

jmeister wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares if the developers get rich? Do you(and the rest of society) get what you want? “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages” ― Adam Smith

> Do you(and the rest of society) get what you want? That is an interesting question. In many cases people here are advocating that the locals don't get what they want, so that "the rest of society" does.

The NIMBY locals always think they represent the community when poll after poll shows that they do not.

The process has been setup to allow a few squeaky wheels to have veto power over change. It's just pure narcissism of the NIMBY that all the other community members have the same belief as them.

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

#958

Post by karmelapple » Wed, Feb 01, 2023, 3:35 AM UTC

civilized wrote: post #910

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.

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 bask…

Just to clarify - do you think that situation is a positive thing, negative thing, or no opinion with regards to it?

I say this as someone who grew up around some places that fit your description.

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

#959

Post by anticensor » Wed, Feb 01, 2023, 3:46 AM UTC

refuse wrote: post #692

I doubt many will see this comment now but... In my local community (rural area) the county changed zoning laws on people's residential properties. It's a damned nightmare. You can't rebuild a home or get approval for anything. According to the wording of the law, the county can sell the trees on your property (and you have to allow any heavy equipment on premise to allow this to happen) and they can supercede any wa…

Land ownership need not equal building ownership. The two can be in the separate hands and there are indeed buildings where that is the case.

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

#960

Post by tshaddox » Wed, Feb 01, 2023, 3:48 AM UTC

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…

> What is being proposed is a significant change to those rules that every owner at some point agreed to.

Sure, because the law is changing, at least ostensibly due to the will of the people. The didn’t initially “agree to the rules,” and the new rules aren’t optional either. I’m obviously not so naive to think that all changes in law reflect the will of the people, but it’s pretty easy to see why this is likely the case, especially in these particular places that have enormous demand for housing and extreme restrictions on new housing developments (I bet that’s not a coincidence!).