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

971–980 of 1001 posts

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

#971

Post by whakim »

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.

I agree that the distinction between property and other forms of wealth doesn't make a lot of sense from the perspective of taxation and mostly exists for historical reasons. Especially because the wealthier the individual, the smaller the percentage of their wealth that is derived from property. Small amounts of wealth like clothes and family photos probably shouldn't be taxable in the same way that small amounts of income aren't.

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

#972

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #834
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…

> What is making people want to restrict their neighborhood to extremely low density suburbs? The answers are very uncomfortable. That’s just urbanists smearing people with innuendo about racism to advance unrelated policy goals. It’s actually ironic, because one of the major population trends right now is “black flight” to the suburbs. People, especially families, like low density suburban zoning because it’s conven…

If it was that simple, inner ring suburbs wouldn't all be zoned single-family, and it wouldn't take state-level action to allow multifamily dwellings to be built. Instead, they artificially restrict density, in defiance of market forces.

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

#973

Post by EricDeb »

dyno12345 wrote: post #961
flaque wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean look at new york the houses are still expensive despite the high rises

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

#974

Post by ryan_lane »

dahfizz wrote: post #716
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…

The pro-density crowd cannot comprehend wanting to live in a quiet, safe, uncrowded town. They say the only possible motivations are money and racism.

I live in Tokyo, in a central area (nearish to Shibuya). It's dense, but quiet, safe, and surprisingly not that crowded. There's a few children's play areas within a 2 minute walk. There's numerous parks around me, including dog runs.

The anti-density crowd can't imagine allowing well planned towns and cities to exist in the US.

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

#975

Post by johny115 »

zzzeek wrote: post #693
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…

I dont like noise, light pollution, or crowds. I'd like nighttime to be silent and pitch dark, and the daytime to be mostly silent as well. I go on trips and need to be able to load lots of stuff in and out of "my" or "a" car without living in terror of all of my stuff getting stolen while I'm inside. Where should I live? Note: I lived in three different boroughs of NYC for 25 years

Any smaller city in Europe lol. With a flat facing the inside of house block (not the street). If you want it to be dead silent and truly pitch dark, then northern Europe (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Estonia).

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

#976

Post by yazaddaruvala »

notch898a wrote: post #145
yazaddaruvala wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever been to Mumbai? Have you been inside their newer luxury buildings? It has many issues, but the modern tall buildings in Mumbai are amazing and are the solution to many of their issues. If the US would start to build new buildings like Mumbai or Singapore more Americans would realize just what luxury and space a condo could have! Mumbai needs more walkability (through super blocks and such), better trash…

I would probably create a bridge or something over the slums. Cheap enough toll to not be much for the people living in the condos, but expensive enough those living in squalor below find it unaffordable. Then you could pretty much live your life going from middle class+ establishment to the next without having to think about the slums below. The bridge would also double as a shelter over any leaking tarp roofs below…

Sadly, Mumbai already works this way.

The “toll” to be on the bridge is the cost of ownership of motorized transport. Wealth segregation by neighborhood is also a thing. This segregation is executed similarly to how it is in North America or Europe.

FWIW, in Mumbai they differentiate a bridge to be road over water and a flyover to be road over other road or residence.

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

#977

Post by jdmtheNth »

kevinburke wrote: post #963
jdmtheNth wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can absolutely agree with you on both of those things. Until everyone in North America has adequate food, shelter, and medical care, we need to insist that our children and country-people come first.

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

#978

Post by 988747 »

mperham wrote: post #906
988747 wrote: post #706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

In my country parking spaces for residential buildings are all underground, outside parking is considered subpar, thanks to the climate. I've seen residential buildings with 3 underground levels, to accommodate all the parking requirements. But in case of 100-unit thing that should not be necessary, one level is enough.

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

#979

Post by specialist »

hcurtiss wrote: post #605
praxulus wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which alternative is less dystopian? * Clearcut wilderness to build more suburban homes * Don't build more homes, just stuff more people into existing homes * Let the excess population live in cars or on the sidewalk * Cull the excess population

Maybe excess population live somewhere else that costs less? That is, quite literally, the choice I made.

And where is that?

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

#980

Post by anovikov »

nicoburns wrote: post #20
anovikov wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fixing homeless requires removing homeless, not adding homes. It's a law enforcement problem, not an economic problem.

I mean, it stands to reason that there also need to be homes for those people to live in. Unless you're planning on executing or imprisoning them instead.

I think large-scale, cheap to maintain, gulag-style camps are the best solution to homelessness.
Post reply on HN