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

961–970 of 1001 posts

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

#961

Post by dyno12345 »

flaque wrote: post #365
dakial1 wrote: post #268

Won't this generate a free fall in house prices in the bay area? Good opportunity for a "big short" move?

Possibly the opposite. If you own a home on a lot that previously you could only build one or two units on, but now you can build N+ units, that lot is worth a lot more. You should expect rent to fall though, multiple studies ( https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/224569/1/vfs-2020-pi... | https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/7fc2bf_ee1737c3c9d4468881bf14... ) have shown that increasing rental units lowers rents. The ma…

yea but once anything starts getting actually built prices have to fall, that's sort of the point, and it's not like demand is so high that every house in the Bay Area would need to be replaced by an apartment building.

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

#962

Post by gibolt »

jahewson wrote: post #843
gibolt wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Houses in Atherton are already the size of apartment buildings. You could house 10-20 units in them without any change to the exterior. Change will happen, people would gladly pay a normal Bay Area house cost to get 1/10 of an Atherton house and live in that school district

They’re going to be some crazy expensive apartments.

Sure but still far less than the barrier to entry of a house there now.

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

#963

Post by kevinburke »

jdmtheNth wrote: post #397
kevinburke wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

San Francisco is a good case study in what happens when you don't build enough housing - people who were previously able to afford cheap apartments now can't and do all of their business out in the street. Other cities and states have worse problems with drug use but don't have problems with homelessness because housing is more affordable there.

That's one way of looking at it, assuming you want to encourage needy people to take over your city. Or you could look at it the same way New York and Colorado are looking at it: https://www.voanews.com/a/new-york-mayor-says-no-room-in-his...

I'd like people with substance problems to get help for their problems, and I'd like for everyone in the richest country in the world to be able to sleep with a roof over their head, instead of in the cold and rain.

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

#964

Post by jimmydddd »

gowld wrote: post #886
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?

I agree it's great to build housing. But picture this scenario. You buy a 3 bedroom house on a quiet cul de sac with five other similar houses next to it. At the end of the cul de sac next to your house is a few acres of woods. A builder then builds a 100 town house 5-story building right behind your house. An entrance to the building is put in right next to your house and you now have 200 cars from the 100 units entering and exiting right past your house. The new residents can stare down from the fifth floor of their units into your once private back yard. And of the 100 units, only 10 or 15 are designated low-income.

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

#965

Post by jimmydddd »

hnburnsy wrote: post #824

> deed-restricted for low income households How does this work for resales? Do them limit what the owner can sell for or to who the owner can sell to?

In NJ, an interesting point is that the owner can only get back roughly the original price of the house when they sell. So it's sort of a double-edged sword as sure, they get to buy and live in a home, but they can't reap the benefits of increased real estate values, which would otherwise be a great benefit for a low income family.

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

#966

Post by refuse »

anticensor wrote: post #959
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.

Sure but in doing so you've stiffed the people least able to fight it. They don't treat businesses or the middle and upper classes like this because they'd fuck the county 23 different ways in court.

Essentially it's a slow-acting imminent domain without compensation.

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

#967

Post by EricDeb »

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?

And if an individual wants to sell his property he owns to someone to build apartments who are the rest of the community to stop him?

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

#968

Post by EricDeb »

thegrimmest wrote: post #293
arrosenberg wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American citizens with the freedom of movement? If you want to remain low-density go settle where California City is, I guarantee you will stay small. Santa Monica, however, is going to have to build housing.

freedom of movement != freedom over the personal property of others, or freedom from binding agreements. You can walk the streets of any neighbourhood you please. Using state authority to overrule local decisions about local matters is what I'm objecting to here.

And why should an individual not be able to build whatever they want (including apartments) on land they own? Why should local decisions override individual freedom?

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

#969

Post by EricDeb »

zbrozek wrote: post #421
oreoftw wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s wrong with the alternative of sane zoning instead of “just buy the plot”? All people want is to live in a quiet and a nice place after all. Why someone who doesn’t even live there but has a bigger buck should decide?

If you don't own stock in a company, you don't vote in its governance decisions. If you don't own a car, you don't determine when to wash it. If you don't own a property, you totally still get to determine what to do with it by being a whiny neighbor. Why is this OK? I'm very-much onboard with the "put up or shut up" model of zoning. If you want the place to be empty, you should own it and keep it empty.

Exactly. These people dont want to actually pay the costs to keep things as they are because really it's about property prices.

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

#970

Post by jjav »

xwdv wrote: post #368
jedberg wrote: post #127

There is a developer in Cupertino who has been fighting with the city for years, who got awfully quiet lately. Now I know why. I suspect they have a plan for an absolutely massive high rise behind my house that they will be submitting at 8am tomorrow morning. My neighbors are going to be pissed .

Good. Fuck your neighbors. The region is long overdue for more housing to fix the ridiculous situation that has formed down there. Hopefully the region will become more affordable as new housing floods the area and brings down prices and makes things generally more affordable.

> Fuck your neighbors. The region is long overdue for more housing to fix the ridiculous situation that has formed down there.

I wonder what the repercussions of this type of uncontrolled building will be.

An overreaction to a frustrating situation usually doesn't end well.

There are good reasons to have construction permits, so growth can be planned. There's also endless ways cities abuse the permit process. But the good reasons still exist.

If developers are allowed to build without any limit, who is going to be planning for all the requirements external to the new building? Water supply capacity, sewer capacity, traffic flow into and out of it, new schools required, etc?

Developers are happy to build a building, sell all the units and leave town with the profits. But additional units do generate additional support needs from the city infrastructure, is anyone considering these needs if a developer is allowed to build anything they like no matter how big?

Post reply on HN