NIMBYS now kneecapping UC system

[fskimospy]

Nonsense. Building new housing is a fine thing. Imposing your will on communities that, through a democratic process, have rejected your ideas of what their communities should be is not.

But the elimination of zoning would be through a democratic process as well so that objection is illogical.

 

[Brainonska511]

Nonsense. Building new housing is a fine thing. Imposing your will on communities that, through a democratic process, have rejected your ideas of what their communities should be is not.

Honestly, the democratic process at the community level touted here is bullshit screen: the people that would benefit most from more housing in desirable communities don't get represented; their views only get represented if there is some magnanimous land owner already living in that community.

 

[Zorba]

People have this weird idea that if SFH-zoning was abolished, that a midrise apartment would pop up next door. I highly doubt that scenario would happen. What you would likely see is many areas stay as SFH, but in some areas where it makes sense or demand is high enough, you'd start to see more missing middle housing: duplexes, townhouses, triplexes, etc... And near transit, you could encourage midrise buildings. Those that want a SFH can still have a SFH, and those that want higher density living and walkable communities can have that.

The bias to SFH has been baked in by decisions made 2-3 generations ago - it's not necessarily people's default preference. We've had years and years of a one-way ratchet that has restricted housing and baked in suburban sprawl. And now the landowners have a vested interest to keep it that way, since we've baked so much of family wealth into owning a home as a nest egg, instead of seeing a home first and foremost as a place to live.

If you allow people to build anything anywhere you'll get a shotgunning of random shit everywhere. We had a guy want to build a 2 unit AirBNB in his backyard, without zoning or CCRs that would've happened. In the middle of a SFH neighborhood. As the ARC chairman for my neighborhood I saw the plans, it would've been terribly built.

 

[Zorba]

So I want to be absolutely clear on what you're arguing here - you're saying that people speculating on the housing market are pushing to increase the supply of the speculative investment they own?

Let's put it another way - say you own 10,000 bushels of soybeans and are speculating on the price. Is it a good thing or a bad thing for your investment if 1,000,000 new bushels of soybeans come onto the market?

Yeah, I think people are mixing up developers and speculators.

 

[Zorba]

Honestly, the democratic process at the community level touted here is bullshit screen: the people that would benefit most from more housing in desirable communities don't get represented; their views only get represented if there is some magnanimous land owner already living in that community.

Democracy does generally work by only letting the people that live some where vote there.

 

[Brainonska511]

Democracy does generally work by only letting the people that live some where vote there.

With housing, that ends up being a big problem since entrenched interests work to keep out future residents. That's why zoning should be moved to the state level and away from hyperlocal control.

 

[fskimospy]

With housing, that ends up being a big problem since entrenched interests work to keep out future residents. That's why zoning should be moved to the state level and away from hyperlocal control.

Right, it's a bad idea to put control of housing policy in the hands of people who have a direct financial interest in driving up the cost of housing.

 

[MrSquished]

It's not feasible to eliminate all residential housing zoning restrictions, but it is certainly not feasible to continue with the status quo. SFZ has to be reduced drastically with an organized planning manner framework. SFZ so close to desirable cities and places to live has created an insanely priced real estate market that is creating homelessness, financial stress and forcing people to live at or near poverty levels and have excluded alternative modes of transportation from being integrated alongside the car. It's also less environmentally sustainable.

This is a nice short read on what it takes to plan better communities near urban centers

The New Urbanists tackling Europe's sprawl

An emerging group of planners is promoting a new kind of answer to the continent's urban sprawl, finds Bruce Stutz from Yale Environment 360, part of the Guardian Environment Network

www.theguardian.com

 

[hal2kilo]

I agree that rapid development can inflict growing pains on the community, particularly through the slow adoption of improved infrastructure as you mention. Sadly, infrastructure improvements are often attacked and delayed by the same NIMBYs that oppose additional housing, often through abuse of environmental review laws.

Developers have always fought improving infrastructure to the point where IICR this has gone all the way to the SCOTUS and the developers won. No we, the tax payers, have to fix all of the no planning after the fact, which is quite expensive.

 

[woolfe9998]

I live in the bay area and I despise these selfish pricks who cloak self-interest in fake environmentalism. They want to damage education and exacerbate homelessness so they can protect the environment? Don't pretend to be a liberal when your motivation is personal wealth. It's truly offensive. And it's been polluting our local politics here for decades. Especially here in the bay area.

 

[IronWing]

But the elimination of zoning would be through a democratic process as well so that objection is illogical.

No, you've proposed stripping local control by elevating the decision to whichever forum provides the answer your seek, community interests be damned.

 

[fskimospy]

Developers have always fought improving infrastructure to the point where IICR this has gone all the way to the SCOTUS and the developers won. No we, the tax payers, have to fix all of the no planning after the fact, which is quite expensive.

Well in many ways I agree with them. I have no problem with requiring developers to pay for any expansion of infrastructure required to serve their project like new electric/water/gas lines or whatever but communities frequently abuse the development approval process to get them to pay for other infrastructure that's at best tangentially related to their project and that's wrong. NYC does this shit all the time - saying if you want to add another 10 floors to your town in midtown Manhattan you have to say, build a public park. Why?? What the fuck does that have to do with building housing?

It's another reason why I think permitting should be by-right - it gets the corruption of the approval process out of the way where cities make zoning more restrictive than they actually plan on using and then use variances to shake people down.

 

[fskimospy]

No, you've proposed stripping local control by elevating the decision to whichever forum provides the answer your seek, community interests be damned.

I'm saying the democratically elected state legislature that gave that community this power to begin with should use its lawful authority to take that power back because it is being abused.

Look, the state tried it this way and it led to a mass humanitarian homelessness crisis. Clearly granting them this authority was a mistake so it's time to fix that mistake. Remember, this is not a situation like between state governments and the federal government where both have spheres of sovereignty - cities, counties, etc. are purely creatures of the state government and only exist as long as the state government finds them useful.

 

[IronWing]

Well in many ways I agree with them. I have no problem with requiring developers to pay for any expansion of infrastructure required to serve their project like new electric/water/gas lines or whatever but communities frequently abuse the development approval process to get them to pay for other infrastructure that's at best tangentially related to their project and that's wrong. NYC does this shit all the time - saying if you want to add another 10 floors to your town in midtown Manhattan you have to say, build a public park. Why?? What the fuck does that have to do with building housing?

It's another reason why I think permitting should be by-right - it gets the corruption of the approval process out of the way where cities make zoning more restrictive than they actually plan on using and then use variances to shake people down.

With your every post, you demonstrate why people don't want to live in your world. The developers should pay for the park because they are the party profiting by dumping more people into a community, straining the capacity of the parks already there. To ask others to pay for the park is externalizing the actual cost of development.

 

[IronWing]

I'm saying the democratically elected state legislature that gave that community this power to begin with should use its lawful authority to take that power back because it is being abused.

Look, the state tried it this way and it led to a mass humanitarian homelessness crisis. Clearly granting them this authority was a mistake so it's time to fix that mistake. Remember, this is not a situation like between state governments and the federal government where both have spheres of sovereignty - cities, counties, etc. are purely creatures of the state government and only exist as long as the state government finds them useful.

You have provided no evidence that this is true. You've repeated it over and over but that doesn't make it true.

 

[woolfe9998]

And for those of you bringing up the issue of infrastructure, let me point out something in respect to the bay area which I don't think you understand.

Every day we have teachers, fire fighters, police, low level office workers, retail workers, etc. who work on the peninsula but who do not make enough money to live here. So they live in the East Bay where property values are somewhat lower. Then every day, they get into their cars and drive a long commute across the San Mateo, Bay or Dumbarton bridges. Creating immense traffic and pollution. It is straining our local highway and road infrastructure.

And then there is the homeless problem. In SF, they spend tons of money on homeless shelters and other services for the homeless. All of that, too, is infrastructure.

We have a coast side here, west of highway 280, that is basically vacant. It's a vast open space. This area is about as large as the entire developed area from SF to San Jose, which we call the peninsula, also known as Silicon Valley. But it can't be developed because of objections from environmental groups. While we have high homelessness and bad traffic with resulting pollution.

 

[fskimospy]

You have provided no evidence that this is true. You've repeated it over and over but that doesn't make it true.

Wait, you're saying you don't believe there's a homelessness crisis?

 

[IronWing]

Wait, you're saying you don't believe there's a homelessness crisis?

You usually strike me as a literate person.

 

[fskimospy]

With your every post, you demonstrate why people don't want to live in your world. The developers should pay for the park because they are the party profiting by dumping more people into a community, straining the capacity of the parks already there. To ask others to pay for the park is externalizing the actual cost of development.

No, the people who use the parks should pay for the parks, which is what they do with their tax dollars. This is common sense.

The developers are profiting by building more housing, something we desperately need. We need to encourage this, not add random strings to projects that drive up the cost.

 

[Moonbeam]

I live in the bay area and I despise these selfish pricks who cloak self-interest in fake environmentalism. They want to damage education and exacerbate homelessness so they can protect the environment? Don't pretend to be a liberal when your motivation is personal wealth. It's truly offensive. And it's been polluting our local politics here for decades. Especially here in the bay area.

On the other hand, the only danger to the environment is people.

 

[fskimospy]

You usually strike me as a literate person.

Haha, - 'who, me?'

If you did not mean to dispute that there's a homelessness crisis then by all means explain what you did intend to say.

 

[IronWing]

No, the people who use the parks should pay for the parks, which is what they do with their tax dollars. This is common sense.

The developers are profiting by building more housing, something we desperately need. We need to encourage this, not add random strings to projects that drive up the cost.

The develops are sponging off the people who already paid for the existing park, an amenity the developers will use to market their building and thereby increase their profits, at the expense of the people who paid for the park.

 

[woolfe9998]

On the other hand, the only danger to the environment is people.

Yes, and this is a particularly good example of humans damaging the environment. As the very people who claim they want to protect it are urging environmentally unfriendly policies. See my post #166.

 

[IronWing]

Haha, - 'who, me?'

If you did not mean to dispute that there's a homelessness crisis then by all means explain what you did intend to say.

So you've chosen the path of being intentionally obtuse, very well.

I'm saying the democratically elected state legislature that gave that community this power to begin with should use its lawful authority to take that power back because it is being abused.

Look, the state tried it this way and it led to a mass humanitarian homelessness crisis.

See the problem with your statement now? You have provided no evidence for making this connection.

 

[fskimospy]

The develops are sponging off the people who already paid for the existing park, an amenity the developers will use to market their building and thereby increase their profits, at the expense of the people who paid for the park.

/facepalm. They are not 'sponging' off anything - the value of the amenities nearby is already priced into the land acquisition price. The people who 'paid for the park' get paid out when they sell the property they own near it. Then the new residents pay taxes to maintain the existing parks and build new ones, the same way cities have always functioned.

Did you think any of this through?