Why housing is so expensive - zoning rule are nuts

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Pohemi

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2004
9,084
11,859
146
Yup, that is because the answers or failures to see answers are determined by the conditioning of the mind seeking them. A mind trapped in the Matrix seeks to preserve the comforts that delusion brings rather than a flush down the toilet of reality.

:rolleyes:
 

MtnMan

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2004
8,784
7,909
136
Local governments have simply lost their fucking mind when it comes to housing.

The primary grocery chain in the area is Ingle's. I remember when the first store opened, when a guy named Bob Ingle purchased an old grocery store. Today, hundreds of stores, plus other retail properties adjacent to grocery stores, rented to a wide variety of business, including some USPS post offices.

Now they want to upgrade the location of the first store, which also includes a number of retail storefronts, and office space. The catch, the city is trying to mandate that they also become landlords and include low income housing into the shopping complex. Total fucking insanity.

You don't solve housing problems by dictating that a grocery store chain must include low income housing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,340
48,601
136
Local governments have simply lost their fucking mind when it comes to housing.

The primary grocery chain in the area is Ingle's. I remember when the first store opened, when a guy named Bob Ingle purchased an old grocery store. Today, hundreds of stores, plus other retail properties adjacent to grocery stores, rented to a wide variety of business, including some USPS post offices.

Now they want to upgrade the location of the first store, which also includes a number of retail storefronts, and office space. The catch, the city is trying to mandate that they also become landlords and include low income housing into the shopping complex. Total fucking insanity.

You don't solve housing problems by dictating that a grocery store chain must include low income housing.
I completely agree. Mandating grocery stores become apartments is insane. The right answer is to allow people to make apartments on whatever land they own.

No mandates, just let the market work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,537
6,143
126
Local governments have simply lost their fucking mind when it comes to housing.

The primary grocery chain in the area is Ingle's. I remember when the first store opened, when a guy named Bob Ingle purchased an old grocery store. Today, hundreds of stores, plus other retail properties adjacent to grocery stores, rented to a wide variety of business, including some USPS post offices.

Now they want to upgrade the location of the first store, which also includes a number of retail storefronts, and office space. The catch, the city is trying to mandate that they also become landlords and include low income housing into the shopping complex. Total fucking insanity.

You don't solve housing problems by dictating that a grocery store chain must include low income housing.
Wouldn't those mandates just be building permits based on the cities zoning laws? Sounds like those NIMBY store owners don't want to have any change the rules governing building permits. Fuck the people who could live there if they were built.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,340
48,601
136
Wouldn't those mandates just be building permits based on the cities zoning laws? Sounds like those NIMBY store owners don't want to have any change the rules governing building permits. Fuck the people who could live there if they were built.
No - I don’t get a sense you understand how zoning works. This has nothing to do with zoning.

That being said yes, this is more government building mandate stupidity - these people should build what they want on their own land.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,537
6,143
126
No - I don’t get a sense you understand how zoning works. This has nothing to do with zoning.

That being said yes, this is more government building mandate stupidity - these people should build what they want on their own land.
I want to build a chicken coop so I can have fresh eggs and fertilizer. No can do because of zoning laws. Life's a bitch. I guess neighborhoods create their own interpretations of what to expect from each other's neighbors based on subjective standards of what they think is an acceptable level of tolerance to each others desires and tastes. I can understand why you think my neighbor should be able to build as he wishes on his or her land regarding building codes you would consider acceptable but your standards are not acceptable to me and that is why I live where I do and you are perfectly happy to change the rules to suit your own ideas.

As I grew up I lived in the country and in the city and found being close to nature infinitely superior. I lived for being outside expanding in every direction my connection with the land around me. I believe that millions of years of my genetic code were finding thereby their raison d'être. I am a monkey not an ant. New York meet King Kong.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,340
48,601
136
I want to build a chicken coop so I can have fresh eggs and fertilizer. No can do because of zoning laws. Life's a bitch.
You have repeatedly made this claim despite being corrected over and over. We are ONLY talking about residential zoning limits, things like parking minimums, etc. Can you stop making long-discredited arguments?

I guess neighborhoods create their own interpretations of what to expect from each other's neighbors based on subjective standards of what they think is an acceptable level of tolerance to each others desires and tastes. I can understand why you think my neighbor should be able to build as he wishes on his or her land regarding building codes you would consider acceptable but your standards are not acceptable to me and that is why I live where I do and you are perfectly happy to change the rules to suit your own ideas.

As I grew up I lived in the country and in the city and found being close to nature infinitely superior. I lived for being outside expanding in every direction my connection with the land around me. I believe that millions of years of my genetic code were finding thereby their raison d'être. I am a monkey not an ant. New York meet King Kong.
The only building codes I consider valid are ones for safety, for reasons I assume are obvious. Other than that there should be NO building codes - all building by right.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,537
6,143
126
You have repeatedly made this claim despite being corrected over and over. We are ONLY talking about residential zoning limits, things like parking minimums, etc. Can you stop making long-discredited arguments?


The only building codes I consider valid are ones for safety, for reasons I assume are obvious. Other than that there should be NO building codes - all building by right.

I think you would like to confine the discussion to those areas only that fit with promoting your case. Believe in whatever rules you think are relevant, but In the real world I’m not getting me chicken coop until enough of my neighbors also want coops and have the votes to change the law. All law is is a way to force standards on others since so many people lack them. If you can enforce your acceptable notions of safety on me surely I can push to prevent density because it leaves children with holes in their inner selves they don’t even know they have.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,340
48,601
136
I think you would like to confine the discussion to those areas only that fit with promoting your case. Believe in whatever rules you think are relevant, but In the real world I’m not getting me chicken coop until enough of my neighbors also want coops and have the votes to change the law. All law is is a way to force standards on others since so many people lack them. If you can enforce your acceptable notions of safety on me surely I can push to prevent density because it leaves children with holes in their inner selves they don’t even know they have.
Lol. I have always been entirely clear on my case so of course I confine my case to what I have said. You are searching for reasons to excuse your own selfishness.

Remember, you demand nothing other than control over everything around you for free.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,202
4,401
136
Local governments have simply lost their fucking mind when it comes to housing.
It is worth remembering that this is a direct result of how democracy works. The current landowners are who the local governments mostly represent, and those people don't want more housing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,537
6,143
126
It is worth remembering that this is a direct result of how democracy works. The current landowners are who the local governments mostly represent, and those people don't want more housing.
People in high density cities seem to be the same. They don't take in homeless people by sharing where they live either.

There is a town on the SF Peninsula where I live that was going to build a really high wall to keep out the bay as sea levels rise, but the people living along where the wall would be built stopped it from being high and efficient so they have build a much lower one in its place. We can't have anything that would protect our land from being submersed by the sea if it might spoil the view or be some sort of thingi that lowers property values. Such folk bank of the hope they will not live long enough to suffer flooding. But that may turn out to be a fools bet. I bought a life raft dingy to have on hand for earthquakes decades ago. May come in handy yet and not for earthquake.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,340
48,601
136
Interesting article that has relevance to this thread.

CEQA is a total disaster in every possible way and should be either massively revised or entirely repealed. As your article mentions briefly it has been used for things like -requiring Los Angeles to continue oil drilling because they hadn’t adequately examined the environmental impact of LESS OIL DRILLING -. It’s also been used to label human beings as a pollutant by their very nature.

New York has a similar problem with weaponized environmental review. The 14th st. busway was held up for YEARS by environmental review of what would happen if only buses could drive on a certain street. You simply cannot run a country this way.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,375
33,784
136
CEQA is a total disaster in every possible way and should be either massively revised or entirely repealed. As your article mentions briefly it has been used for things like -requiring Los Angeles to continue oil drilling because they hadn’t adequately examined the environmental impact of LESS OIL DRILLING -. It’s also been used to label human beings as a pollutant by their very nature.

New York has a similar problem with weaponized environmental review. The 14th st. busway was held up for YEARS by environmental review of what would happen if only buses could drive on a certain street. You simply cannot run a country this way.

California has been staring to chip away at CEQA narrowly for housing. That's probably going to continue and increase now that the trade unions are getting a little taste of what increased housing production under the bills that have done this means ($$$). YIMBY bills now garnering impressive union support who the legislature actually listens to. I'd like to see it scrapped entirely for infill development but that may still be a bit too much for them to handle yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,340
48,601
136
California has been staring to chip away at CEQA narrowly for housing. That's probably going to continue and increase now that the trade unions are getting a little taste of what increased housing production under the bills that have done this means ($$$). YIMBY bills now garnering impressive union support who the legislature actually listens to. I'd like to see it scrapped entirely for infill development but that may still be a bit too much for them to handle yet.
Any reduction in that law is welcome but it hamstrings development in almost every way. For example if I’m not mistaken one of the big reasons to send that high speed rail off into the boonies instead of where it would be useful was CEQA concerns.

An environmental protection law is bad when it is consistently used for purposes that make the environment worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi and hal2kilo

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,375
33,784
136
Any reduction in that law is welcome but it hamstrings development in almost every way. For example if I’m not mistaken one of the big reasons to send that high speed rail off into the boonies instead of where it would be useful was CEQA concerns.

An environmental protection law is bad when it is consistently used for purposes that make the environment worse.

The diversion to Palmdale was mostly about linking up with a theoretical Vegas HSR in the future and yes also fewer complaints. Since Brightline is going to build their Vegas train line over Cajon Pass there is little practical reason to keep the existing planned alignment. Just go straight with the 5 into Bakersfield.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,340
48,601
136
The diversion to Palmdale was mostly about linking up with a theoretical Vegas HSR in the future and yes also fewer complaints. Since Brightline is going to build their Vegas train line over Cajon Pass there is little practical reason to keep the existing planned alignment. Just go straight with the 5 into Bakersfield.
The HSR project should have gone directly up the coast from San Diego to LA to the Bay Area because that's where the vast majority of people live and that's the route where HSR would see the most ridership.

This seems to be mostly a case of 'well we need to build SOMETHING', which is going to doom the entire project. You're going to end up with a line very few people use at enormous cost and then everyone's going to say 'what a waste of time and money' and cancel the rest. Transit projects should ALWAYS have the primary focus of maximum ridership.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

Drach

Golden Member
Apr 24, 2022
1,079
1,703
106
As a builder I have spent the last year trying to build a 1400 sq ft single family home in Orinda California.
So far without doing ANY work on my property I am into this endeavor $200000.
Architects, lawyers, soils engineers, structural engineers, City permits and on and on.
This doesn't include the original price of the property.
 
Dec 10, 2005
24,210
7,038
136
The HSR project should have gone directly up the coast from San Diego to LA to the Bay Area because that's where the vast majority of people live and that's the route where HSR would see the most ridership.

This seems to be mostly a case of 'well we need to build SOMETHING', which is going to doom the entire project. You're going to end up with a line very few people use at enormous cost and then everyone's going to say 'what a waste of time and money' and cancel the rest. Transit projects should ALWAYS have the primary focus of maximum ridership.
A lot of people live along the current planned route: the cities it will pass through still have hundreds of thousands of people each. And following a direct route was not without its own issues of having to pass through somewhat mountainous terrain.

Transit should be built where people live, but transit should also be built where people are moving to. We should be doing both!
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
21,543
19,935
136
The HSR project should have gone directly up the coast from San Diego to LA to the Bay Area because that's where the vast majority of people live and that's the route where HSR would see the most ridership.

This seems to be mostly a case of 'well we need to build SOMETHING', which is going to doom the entire project. You're going to end up with a line very few people use at enormous cost and then everyone's going to say 'what a waste of time and money' and cancel the rest. Transit projects should ALWAYS have the primary focus of maximum ridership.

It makes no sense to build a high speed rail where half of it traverses barely populated areas in central california in the desert, and not run it up the coast where everyone lives and also is where people love to visit the most - you'd get locals and tourists to flock to that train. They build infrastructure through all sorts of crazy geography in Europe and Japan, but somehow here we can't do it. It's insane. They'll build highways anywhere here,, but fuck mass transit. Completely backwards thinking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo and Pohemi

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,375
33,784
136
The HSR project should have gone directly up the coast from San Diego to LA to the Bay Area because that's where the vast majority of people live and that's the route where HSR would see the most ridership.

This seems to be mostly a case of 'well we need to build SOMETHING', which is going to doom the entire project. You're going to end up with a line very few people use at enormous cost and then everyone's going to say 'what a waste of time and money' and cancel the rest. Transit projects should ALWAYS have the primary focus of maximum ridership.

Since SD-LA is the busiest by ridership in the state I don't really disagree. I think they're going to have to end up reusing much of the existing LOSSAN alignment though except for tunnels at San Clemente and Del Mar (to get away from the encroaching ocean). The costs and political landscape for a brand new alignment through there are even worse than the new alignment proposed in the Bay Area where they gave up and just electrified Caltrain.


A lot of people live along the current planned route: the cities it will pass through still have hundreds of thousands of people each. And following a direct route was not without its own issues of having to pass through somewhat mountainous terrain.

Transit should be built where people live, but transit should also be built where people are moving to. We should be doing both!

Yes, millions of people live in the Central Valley catchment area from Bakersfield north. It's a valuable segment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brainonska511

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,340
48,601
136
A lot of people live along the current planned route: the cities it will pass through still have hundreds of thousands of people each. And following a direct route was not without its own issues of having to pass through somewhat mountainous terrain.

Transit should be built where people live, but transit should also be built where people are moving to. We should be doing both!
Hey if you want to build it all that's great by me too but if we are only building one thing it should be where we get the most riders.

And that's true, 'the boonies' is not accurate as there is significant population there but the main use case is, and always has been, connecting the Bay Area to Southern California and that's what they should focus on making as good and as fast as possible. I stand by my prediction that ridership on this line will be low and that because of that the state will give up on the remainder, which is terrible!

I think people often get transit backwards. They should start from the highest value case first and then expand from there. So in this case, make the world's greatest train from LA (population 13 million) to the Bay Area (population 8 million). If that is successful then expand it. Here they are linking Bakersfield (400k) to Merced (90k). This is a recipe for failure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo and Pohemi