5 ms·

I'm a diehard YIMBY myself and thus inclined to agree, but you've larded up your post here with some grade-A class-politics bullshit. > That’s intentionally to

I'm a diehard YIMBY myself and thus inclined to agree, but you've larded up your post here with some grade-A class-politics bullshit. > That’s intentionally too small for families with kids, especially in areas with weird lot shape constraints. No, that's just what an ADU is. It stands for accessory dwelling unit, not additional dwelling unit. If you want to argue that people should be able to build additional full-size dwelling units on their property, that's fine, and I might even agree with you. But then we're no longer talking about ADUs, and we have to address a whole different set of practical problems. ADU's have an important role, which would not necessarily be served by unrestricted infill. > I guess this protects affluent schools from poor kids. Really? You guess? You can't imagine any other reasons folks might be reluctant to allow unrestricted construction of multiple new residences on existing lots? > Also, they can’t be sold separately from the main house, only rented. Presumably this is to prevent lower class people from owning houses. No, it's because selling an ADU separately from the primary dwelling makes no fucking sense whatsoever. An ADU doesn't have it's own separate water, sewer, or electrical service. It shares the lot with the primary dwelling, and you can't subdivide without figuring out right-of-ways, for which there is often not enough room. > On the bright side for owners of ADUs, the state-wide rent control laws that were recently passed don’t apply to them (though the anti-eviction clauses might) so home owners can use them to extract extra money from students (and therefore UC), as rent control restricts construction of higher density housing. Great, another variation on the old theme of the landed class extracting money from the working class. Fine, NIMBY homeowners are evil. I agree enthusiastically, without irony. But renting an ADU is much like renting out a room in your house. Imposing restrictions on how much money someone can make from renting a portion of their own residence, or worse yet, preventing a homeowner from evicting tenants from the homeowner's own residence, sure sounds like a recipe for not having any rented ADUs in a city, and accordingly for doing jack shit to improve the housing situation.

CalRobert 7y ago
"Really? You guess? You can't imagine any other reasons folks might be reluctant to allow unrestricted construction of multiple new residences on existing lots?" Sure, usually they bitch and moan that someone else will take their taxpayer-funded free storage for private property (so long as it has an engine) on a public street.
- nate_meurer 7y ago
  I hate the sense of entitlement that leads some people to lay claim to the street in front of their home. That said, parking is a legit issue. Bad parking can severely impact the livability of a neighborhood. It does you no good to have a chip on your shoulder over a few entitled assholes.
  - CalRobert 7y ago
    When someone says "I need a free place for my car on the street so therefore you can't build homes here" they're basically saying they care more about homeless cars than homeless people.
    - nate_meurer 7y ago
      Yes I agree. But like I said, don't let that chip on your shoulder make you incapable of rational thought. Entitled assholes notwithstanding, parking (and car traffic in general) is a serious problem that deserves careful consideration if aggressive infill is to be allowed.
      - CalRobert 7y ago
        We agree, but my approach is generally to tell drivers to suck it up and start paying for what they use (i.e. if you want parking, go rent or buy some land. Or build your own. But don't force others to build parking just so you can keep privatizing the public street for free). Of course, this is not a popular view so I remain an eccentric cycling weirdo, except that I got tired of dealing with drivers trying to kill me while cycling in the city, so now I live in the country, and drive everywhere.
hedora 7y ago
> If you want to argue that people should be able to build additional full-size dwelling units on their property, that's fine, and I might even agree with you. I was taking a more conservative stance than that: Why not allow one ADU, and put a limit on the sum of the square footage on the property? Currently zoned for 8000 sq ft + 1200 sq ft ADU? Build two 4600 sq ft McMansions, for all I care. Going to unlimited infill dwellings regardless of zoning and local infrastructure is pretty radical, and I’m actually not for that.

CalRobert 7y ago

"Really? You guess? You can't imagine any other reasons folks might be reluctant to allow unrestricted construction of multiple new residences on existing lots?" Sure, usually they bitch and moan that someone else will take their taxpayer-funded free storage for private property (so long as it has an engine) on a public street.

nate_meurer 7y ago
I hate the sense of entitlement that leads some people to lay claim to the street in front of their home. That said, parking is a legit issue. Bad parking can severely impact the livability of a neighborhood. It does you no good to have a chip on your shoulder over a few entitled assholes.
- CalRobert 7y ago
  When someone says "I need a free place for my car on the street so therefore you can't build homes here" they're basically saying they care more about homeless cars than homeless people.
  - nate_meurer 7y ago
    Yes I agree. But like I said, don't let that chip on your shoulder make you incapable of rational thought. Entitled assholes notwithstanding, parking (and car traffic in general) is a serious problem that deserves careful consideration if aggressive infill is to be allowed.
    - CalRobert 7y ago
      We agree, but my approach is generally to tell drivers to suck it up and start paying for what they use (i.e. if you want parking, go rent or buy some land. Or build your own. But don't force others to build parking just so you can keep privatizing the public street for free). Of course, this is not a popular view so I remain an eccentric cycling weirdo, except that I got tired of dealing with drivers trying to kill me while cycling in the city, so now I live in the country, and drive everywhere.

hedora 7y ago

> If you want to argue that people should be able to build additional full-size dwelling units on their property, that's fine, and I might even agree with you. I was taking a more conservative stance than that: Why not allow one ADU, and put a limit on the sum of the square footage on the property? Currently zoned for 8000 sq ft + 1200 sq ft ADU? Build two 4600 sq ft McMansions, for all I care. Going to unlimited infill dwellings regardless of zoning and local infrastructure is pretty radical, and I’m actually not for that.