NIMBYS now kneecapping UC system

[fskimospy]

I’m not sure what people don’t get about this. NIMBYs want to mandate single family houses. The opposition doesn’t want to mandate high rise apartment buildings, we want people to be free to build whatever they want.

 

[Greenman]

But that’s the whole thing, I don’t want to mandate anything. I want to end the single family zoning mandate and let the market build whatever it wants.

In desirable areas, that will be single family homes or luxury condos. Restrictions on construction will be done through CC&R's.

 

[fskimospy]

In desirable areas, that will be single family homes or luxury condos. Restrictions on construction will be done through CC&R's.

Sounds great, build zillions of luxury condos!

As far as trying to restrict development through homeowner’s associations that’s just as easy to end as well. You can simply pass a law that says no such covenant can restrict land use for the purpose of density.

 

[Greenman]

Sounds great, build zillions of luxury condos!

As far as trying to restrict development through homeowner’s associations that’s just as easy to end as well. You can simply pass a law that says no such covenant can restrict land use for the purpose of density.

Thank God for NIMBYism. The thought of living in the place you're promoting is sobering.
Would you actually want to live like that? You'd voluntarily become cattle?

 

[uclaLabrat]

Thank God for NIMBYism. The thought of living in the place you're promoting is sobering.
Would you actually want to live like that? You'd voluntarily become cattle?

Serious question: how many times have you bitched about the homeless problem?

 

[fskimospy]

Thank God for NIMBYism. The thought of living in the place you're promoting is sobering.
Would you actually want to live like that? You'd voluntarily become cattle?

That’s the beauty of it, if people don’t want to live like that they don’t have to, but if they do that’s available too!

I have a suggestion - if you’re truly worried about the state of how people might live you’ve got masses of people sleeping in their cars and in tents because of the NIMBYism you support. Maybe start with them?

 

[Brainonska511]

Supply restrictions have led to inflated car prices, both new and old, and manufacturers are diverting their limited supply of chips to higher margin vehicles, so fewer lower priced cars are also being produced. People get this, but the moment you ask them to apply this thinking to housing, their brains break.
----
And don't get me started on the diversions to "luxury" housing: a pure marketing term that really just means "new" with some simple everyday amenities like insulation and in unit washer/dryer/dishwasher/thermostat. God forbid we have housing for people that isn't some 100-year-old fire trap shit box.

 

[IronWing]

That’s the beauty of it, if people don’t want to live like that they don’t have to, but if they do that’s available too!

I have a suggestion - if you’re truly worried about the state of how people might live you’ve got masses of people sleeping in their cars and in tents because of the NIMBYism you support. Maybe start with them?

You have yet to offer a single feasible solution to homelessness. All your proposals circle around making very wealthy people even wealthier at the expense of the middle class.

 

[fskimospy]

You have yet to offer a single feasible solution to homelessness. All your proposals circle around making very wealthy people even wealthier at the expense of the middle class.

That’s nonsense, the feasible solution to homelessness is to make housing cheaper by building more homes. Why did you think homelessness skyrocketed in California over the last 10 years? The prices went way up. People often delude themselves into thinking that mental illness or substance abuse are the main causes of homelessness but this is not close to the truth - it’s that people can’t afford homes.

As far as my plan making rich people richer that’s also nonsense. My ideas help the middle class, which is currently being crushed by housing costs. Your plan to keep pushing house prices higher through scarcity is just making wealthy people wealthier at the expense of the poor and middle class.

Ask yourself this simple question - if we stopped building any new cars would this help or hurt the middle class?

 

[MrSquished]

These people have been sold a false bill of goods. That everyone can have their single-family home and that should be mandated and freedom is somehow achieved by restricting land use in draconian ways.

Well the fact is we have way too many people that need to live where there are jobs and opportunity, and thus we have a housing crisis because of overly restrictive zoning.

But these people offer zero solutions. It's rather saddening and maddening and disturbing.

It's also sad because mandating single family zoning in so much of our land forces whole areas to just become these sprawling tract developments that are highly inefficient with transportation modes and generally lack community and culture. More mixed developments and transportation alternatives would create a far more thriving society in general, and energy efficient.

So not only are they forcing people to be homeless or barely surviving with a roof over their heads, they're also stunting actual progress with how we create communities, townships, cities, transportation, etc

 

[uclaLabrat]

These people have been sold a false bill of goods. That everyone can have their single-family home and that should be mandated and freedom is somehow achieved by restricting land use in draconian ways.

Well the fact is we have way too many people that need to live where there are jobs and opportunity, and thus we have a housing crisis because of overly restrictive zoning.

But these people offer zero solutions. It's rather saddening and maddening and disturbing.

It's also sad because mandating single family zoning in so much of our land forces whole areas to just become these sprawling tract developments that are highly inefficient with transportation modes and generally lack community and culture. More mixed developments and transportation alternatives would create a far more thriving society in general, and energy efficient.

So not only are they forcing people to be homeless or barely surviving with a roof over their heads, they're also stunting actual progress with how we create communities, townships, cities, transportation, etc

Really would increase competiveness if red areas were more viable economically. Ironically the places that are so pro business have such a hard time attracting business.

 

[MrSquished]

Really would increase competiveness if red areas were more viable economically. Ironically the places that are so pro business have such a hard time attracting business.

Well some places are because of the cheaper cost of living, like Texas. But they are doing the same thing and pretty much not evolving with zoning either and just creating massive sprawl and more traffic, barely any mass transit.

For blue areas to keep competing they need to evolve their housing strategies and keep evolving transit strategies. Better school systems are also what draws top talent and thats other reason why certain blue states are far above red states, but if people can't afford to live there it's tough.

Red states don't care about providing good education, they don't care about providing affordable housing and they certainly will never care about better transit so it's time for blue states to pick up the pace. Step one is getting rid of draconian's zoning laws.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Well some places are because of the cheaper cost of living, like Texas. But they are doing the same thing and pretty much not evolving with zoning either and just creating massive sprawl and more traffic, barely any mass transit.

For blue areas to keep competing they need to evolve their housing strategies and keep evolving transit strategies. Better school systems are also what draws top talent and thats other reason why certain blue states are far above red states, but if people can't afford to live there it's tough.

Red states don't care about providing good education, they don't care about providing affordable housing and they certainly will never care about better transit so it's time for blue states to pick up the pace. Step one is getting rid of draconian's zoning laws.

Precisely my point. Red areas are cheap because no one wants to live there. There are multitude reasons why (lack of culture/social activity, bad weather, etc) but when push comes to shove it comes down to business and economic opportunity.

 

[Greenman]

That’s the beauty of it, if people don’t want to live like that they don’t have to, but if they do that’s available too!

I have a suggestion - if you’re truly worried about the state of how people might live you’ve got masses of people sleeping in their cars and in tents because of the NIMBYism you support. Maybe start with them?

Where I'm going homes are plentiful and inexpensive, maybe some of the folks who can't afford a California home should move there.

 

[Zorba]

Right, developers build luxury housing generally and that’s fine. Poor and middle class people usually can’t afford to live in brand new houses similar to how they usually can’t afford brand new cars. Odd how people understand this basic fact when it comes to the car market but struggle to grasp the exact same dynamic for housing.

Except, in cities with out a lot of vacant land, they almost always remove cheap housing stock and replace it with more expensive housing stock.

I agree with you that there needs to be a lot more housing. I disagree with you that the solution is removing all zoning, covenants, and community planning. Density needs to be planned and developed in corridors to support public transit and other infrastructure. Without zoning density gets shotgunned all over the place, which is terrible for infrastructure of all types.

 

[Zorba]

That’s the beauty of it, if people don’t want to live like that they don’t have to, but if they do that’s available too!

This doesn't agree with what you are proposing. I don't want to live next to a pot shop and 40 unit apartment building, so I bought into a neighborhood that matched my desires. If my neighbor could tomorrow turn his property into an apartment complex then I am being forced to live in a way I choose not to.

Also cities dump a shit ton of responsibilities on HOAs, if they decide to get rid of restrictive covenants, I seriously doubt any HOA would continue to provide for maintenance on all the crap the city dumps on them.

As cities evolve areas should be rezoned and redeveloped, but it should be done with a plan. It shouldn't be Jim Bob wants to home build and 4 unit apartment next door to rent out of AirBNB.

Or what would actually happen around here. You buy into a neighborhood that bans oil drilling (not all do around here), and then your neighbor decides to put in a frack well next door. No big deal right? It's his property, who cares if jack pumps are loud and the smell of crude is noxious.

ETA: If my neighborhood got tapped as one of the rezoning areas, so be it, at least I'd know it was coming and could plan accordingly. And hopefully it wouldn't be Jim Bob's AirBNB Shack.

 

[Zorba]

Well some places are because of the cheaper cost of living, like Texas. But they are doing the same thing and pretty much not evolving with zoning either and just creating massive sprawl and more traffic, barely any mass transit.

For blue areas to keep competing they need to evolve their housing strategies and keep evolving transit strategies. Better school systems are also what draws top talent and thats other reason why certain blue states are far above red states, but if people can't afford to live there it's tough.

Red states don't care about providing good education, they don't care about providing affordable housing and they certainly will never care about better transit so it's time for blue states to pick up the pace. Step one is getting rid of draconian's zoning laws.

Texas kind of shows what happens with no or very low zoning and community planning. Just massive sprawl. Where you do start getting some density, then a fucking Ikea and Walmart setup shop next to it, so the Dense mix used area is surrounded by parking lots.

 

[Zorba]

Where I'm going homes are plentiful and inexpensive, maybe some of the folks who can't afford a California home should move there.

To @MrSquished point, you aren't going to move there until you are retired.

 

[fskimospy]

Where I'm going homes are plentiful and inexpensive, maybe some of the folks who can't afford a California home should move there.

Wouldn’t it be easier to just relax zoning laws instead of try and plan some mass migration?

 

[fskimospy]

Texas kind of shows what happens with no or very low zoning and community planning. Just massive sprawl. Where you do start getting some density, then a fucking Ikea and Walmart setup shop next to it, so the Dense mix used area is surrounded by parking lots.

Texas is often held up as an example of a state with little in the way of zoning but that’s not the case. They have tons of regulations such as parking minimums, historic districts, etc. that act as de facto zoning.

Also if anything zoning encourages sprawl because that’s all you’re legally allowed to do. You can’t build up, so you build out.

 

[fskimospy]

This doesn't agree with what you are proposing. I don't want to live next to a pot shop and 40 unit apartment building, so I bought into a neighborhood that matched my desires. If my neighbor could tomorrow turn his property into an apartment complex then I am being forced to live in a way I choose not to.

You aren’t forced to do anything, you can move somewhere else where that’s not the case. The force is only going one way - you are using the government to force your neighbor to use property only in the way you approve of. He’s not forcing you to do anything.

And if your thought is ‘why should I have to move?’ The answer is you don’t, but the idea that because you made a purchase you should get veto power over your neighbors’ use of their own land so that you never regret that purchase…no. If you want control of your neighbors’ land you are free to buy it.

I will never understand where people get the idea that because they purchased a home that means they have a right to ensure that nothing about their neighborhood changes because that wouldn’t be ‘fair’ to them.

Also cities dump a shit ton of responsibilities on HOAs, if they decide to get rid of restrictive covenants, I seriously doubt any HOA would continue to provide for maintenance on all the crap the city dumps on them.

As cities evolve areas should be rezoned and redeveloped, but it should be done with a plan. It shouldn't be Jim Bob wants to home build and 4 unit apartment next door to rent out of AirBNB.

People keep saying this as if we haven’t been trying this for a half century, with disastrous results.

These laws don’t work, or at least they don’t work if your goal is that housing should be affordable. They work great if you think their goal is to corruptly enrich incumbent landowners.

Or what would actually happen around here. You buy into a neighborhood that bans oil drilling (not all do around here), and then your neighbor decides to put in a frack well next door. No big deal right? It's his property, who cares if jack pumps are loud and the smell of crude is noxious.

ETA: If my neighborhood got tapped as one of the rezoning areas, so be it, at least I'd know it was coming and could plan accordingly. And hopefully it wouldn't be Jim Bob's AirBNB Shack.

We are and have always been discussing residential density restrictions, not whether someone can open an oil well in the middle of someone’s neighborhood.

 

[Zorba]

Texas is often held up as an example of a state with little in the way of zoning but that’s not the case. They have tons of regulations such as parking minimums, historic districts, etc. that act as de facto zoning.

Also if anything zoning encourages sprawl because that’s all you’re legally allowed to do. You can’t build up, so you build out.

Everywhere has historic districts, which we both agree are bullshit the vast majority of the time. But Historic districts are not why North DFW is nothing but sprawl.

But Texas and Oklahoma both have very relaxed zoning laws and zoning can be very easily changed. Yes there is way too much preference given to cars, and there are some other restrictions, but the default mode even with very lax zoning is sprawl. Zoning could and should be used to restrict that sprawl and force sustainable development. Deleting zoning all together would do nothing to create more sustainable development.

 

[Moonbeam]

If we build a system the aim of which is to achieve efficiency through economic competition and the reward of which is gratification via private ownership of in demand objects we will end up withe most efficiently self motivated and free of moral obligation in the form of empathy owing everything. This will lead to some haves and a lot of have nots. The haves will require the services of as few people of talent as possible with the least wages as they will possibly work for having jobs with the rest unemployed. When the system goes global and infects the rest of the inefficient world there will open up a huge new area of exploitation. People with nothing willing to work for nothing will work their asses off to sit at and then buy that table.

Every human need will be commoditized and hatred and rage will become universal. All effort will be directed at maintaining any advantage attained.

The way to fix the calamity of human poverty that will ensue is not to fall into the trap of fixing symptoms but to treat the cause. The game that we are wedded to emotionally is the disease. The game lovers will devote towering resources to making sure people don’t see this. The experience of the good life of harmony and love will be left to be had via a Netflix subscription.

We have created a world where personal well being is dependent on the existence of billions of people in need. The business of real estate is one way to profit from this. Imagine the value of cemeteries if you could just get those stiffs off your land.

 

[fskimospy]

Everywhere has historic districts, which we both agree are bullshit the vast majority of the time. But Historic districts are not why North DFW is nothing but sprawl.

But Texas and Oklahoma both have very relaxed zoning laws and zoning can be very easily changed. Yes there is way too much preference given to cars, and there are some other restrictions, but the default mode even with very lax zoning is sprawl. Zoning could and should be used to restrict that sprawl and force sustainable development. Deleting zoning all together would do nothing to create more sustainable development.

This is because Texas has a shitload of empty space so land is very cheap. This isn’t related to zoning, it’s just generally more amenable to sprawl. Texas also doesn’t have a housing crisis anything like the northeast or west coast.

Where abolishment of zoning would really come in handy is in the areas where free land is very hard to come by so your only real solution is to build up because you can no longer build out.

People talk about NYC and say ‘it’s super dense but also super expensive’ but they miss the point that its density is largely the result of a bygone era. Per capita housing production in the city has been among the lowest in the country for a long time now, which has caused housing prices to skyrocket.

 

[Zorba]

You aren’t forced to do anything, you can move somewhere else where that’s not the case. The force is only going one way - you are using the government to force your neighbor to use property only in the way you approve of. He’s not forcing you to do anything.

I couldn't just move somewhere else that isn't true under what you propose. Also CCR are not enforced by the government, they are contracts between the homeowners within a community. The only time the government gets involved is if one homeowner sues another for breach of contract.

And if your thought is ‘why should I have to move?’ The answer is you don’t, but the idea that because you made a purchase you should get veto power over your neighbors’ use of their own land so that you never regret that purchase…no. If you want control of your neighbors’ land you are free to buy it.

Except you just said "if you don't want to live like that you don't have to." Having no zoning means you have absolutely zero say in what your community, even if your immediate community looks like. That mean you have absolutely no ability to decide how you live, period.

I will never understand where people get the idea that because they purchased a home that means they have a right to ensure that nothing about their neighborhood changes because that wouldn’t be ‘fair’ to them.

When I sign a contract, I expect people to honor that contract. But again, I've fine with replanning, but it shouldn't be a complete free for all where anyone can do whatever they want on "their property." It is pretty clear you've never seen what rednecks do with "their property."

People keep saying this as if we haven’t been trying this for a half century, with disastrous results.

These laws don’t work, or at least they don’t work if your goal is that housing should be affordable. They work great if you think their goal is to corruptly enrich incumbent landowners.

You completely dodged what I was saying, for the 100th time. I'm guess that is because you don't understand that how much responsibility for public infrastructure gets dumped on to HOAs. In the last year my HOA has spent over 100K doing work that would've fallen onto the city without that HOA and if you take away the CCR, you take away the free maintenance too.

We are and have always been discussing residential density restrictions, not whether someone can open an oil well in the middle of someone’s neighborhood.

But I thought you were pro the owner's right to do what they wanted to do with their land? You take away our CCRs, people will drill in our neighborhood, there is no other law preventing it. (He's one such case, I could post many more: https://goo.gl/maps/1n7q8sSc84VTvaHRA)

You can increase density through planned efforts, with zoning. This would be the most effective way of encouraging dense pockets and public transportation and reduce sprawl. Free for all won't do that and will make it where no middle class person could afford to live in a neighborhood that is safe from a noxious neighbor. Rich people would still find away to shut out noxious neighbors, of course.