6 ms·

The anti-NIMBY antagonizing is much more bizarre. If citizens moved into a community because it was 'spacious and quiet' then it's 100% their right to keep it

The anti-NIMBY antagonizing is much more bizarre. If citizens moved into a community because it was 'spacious and quiet' then it's 100% their right to keep it that way, and utterly bizarre that outsider should think they have the right to force some kind of change. If community ABC does not want to be NY or Hong Kong that's entirely their perogative. And FYI there's no evidence that 'density' decreases prices. The most 'dense' places in the US are the most expensive. Americans do not have an inherent right to live in some place. There's plenty of land in the US meaning, Americans effectively have the right to choice, and to have some affordable abode, but that exists aplenty. Now - when places like Atherton stop secondary projects, such as the electrification of Caltrain - now that's something else entirely - the community overall needs better transport, so Atherton needs to accommodate. The 'solution' is probably to have much better/deeper/faster integration between transport services, how in holy cow is there not a 'very fast train' that goes around the bay, out to Sac, down to Morgan Hill, and up to Santa Rosa? With great connectors? Frankly same with LA. All of North and South Cal should be quickly navigable. That would make it more amenable to development.

ch4s3 4y ago
Stopping people from developing land to the legally defined limit that they have lawfully purchased is NOT the right of any community. It is in fact a taking and a perversion of the rule of law. Furthermore no one is arguing that density drives down prices. You’re arguing against a straw man here. People are pointing out correctly, and in line with all housing economists, that constraining supply raises prices.
- jollybean 4y ago
  False on both counts. First, it's 100% the right of communities to establish - and change - zoning laws. Those can change after a property is acquired. More importantly - this issue is not about people having zoning changed from under their noses, rather, it's about developers interested in creating different kinds of accommodation then those that have previously existed under existing rules. They knew what they were getting into when they bought the land. This is not 'zoning rug pull' kind of activity. Second - this push is mostly about issues affordability. Cali legislation was driven by it. "Governor Newsom Signs Legislation to Increase Affordable Housing Supply and Strengthen Accountability, Highlights Comprehensive Strategy to Tackle Housing Crisis" [1] What you are calling a 'straw man' is literally 'the man'. [1] https://www.gov.ca.gov/2021/09/28/governor-newsom-signs-legislation-to-increase-affordable-housing-supply-and-strengthen-accountability-highlights-comprehensive-strategy-to-tackle-housing-crisis/ https://www.gov.ca.gov/2021/09/28/governor-newsom-signs-legi...
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    > First, it's 100% the right of communities to establish - and change - zoning laws. That’s not the argument I’m making. I’m saying that communities have no right to arbitrarily block uses that comply with existing code. This is a rule of law issue. SF has admitted to violating state law which supersedes local law. Again, my point is that YIMBYs are not making the claim that density per se drives down costs. But yes arbitrarily restricting housing supply does create affordability issues. The NIMBYs of SF in the end if they win will find that they have created a museum of SF.
  - stale2002 4y ago
    > First, it's 100% the right of communities to establish - and change - zoning laws Ok, well it is also the right of the state to make laws and force these communities to change, under threat of government force. Which is what is happening right now. There are going to be lawsuits that force communities to allow people to do what they want, with their own property. Go win a state election if you disagree.
- masonic 4y ago
  That "legally defined limit" is defined by zoning. So one can't say that they support maintaining existing limits and yet want existing zoning unilaterally ended.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    The problem is that SF is arbitrarily denying projects that comply with existing zoning and violating state law in doing so.
- mike50 4y ago
  Its the rate of change in prices that is hopefully moderated by building more houses.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    I think you’re agreeing with me.
ziddoap 4y ago
>If citizens moved into a community because it was 'spacious and quiet' then it's 100% their right to keep it that way I'm not from the US, would you able to explain why this is a 'right'? Especially when, from my loose understanding of the situation, the state law seems to be on the side of those you call "outsiders"?
- jollybean 4y ago
  Because it's their home, and they literally own the land. Irrespective of the legalities, you do realize zoning is an almost universal concept? You do realize that you can't just waltz into some neighbourhood, and screw everyone over by building a giant skyscraper in the middle of their land? (Even if this law were supposedly upheld) Probably over 90% of communities in the US, even those with more open zoning, wouldn't allow any arbitrary thing to be built. Finally, it's debatable if the 'state law' is on their side, or even if it's constitutional. A better question would be why you think you have a right to go into a quiet community and screw everyone over? Your actions affect others. If the community doesn't want some thing, then go elsewhere. There's plenty of land. In a place like Hong Kong, where land is very scarce, you run into a completely different set of social issues, with the poor being held to the economic wall otherwise. There's plenty of space in the US, even in Cali.
  - briandear 4y ago
    Fun fact: Houston doesn’t have zoning and somehow it works just fine. There are deep restricted communities but you know that before you buy there.
    - quacked 4y ago
      You've never lived in Houston, have you? It's a depressing concrete swamp with high cancer rates. The defining aesthetic is "strip mall" and the traffic is from Hell. The nice parts are the parts filled with rich NIMBYs, like the Rice campus and the wooded neighborhoods to the west of downtown. Edit: I forgot to mention all the cheap housing built by profit-hawks on flood plains that was destroyed or severely damaged in Harvey.
thatfrenchguy 4y ago
> If citizens moved into a community because it was 'spacious and quiet' then it's 100% their right to keep it that way You and I bought our land, not the right to do whatever around. You need to come around to the fact that California is going to get a lot denser when the boomers are dead.
- jollybean 4y ago
  You need to come around to the fact that people who live in areas have the right to live they they want. You need to come around to the fact that 'density' is a worthless metric, that has little advantage. It's laughable that you think 'boomers' are the one's who want to live in peace and quiet, that's 99% of people. Almost anyone, were they able to move to Atherton, would not want low cost density next to them. FYI people are leaving Cali, build better transport and it'll solve a lot of these problems.
winkeyless 4y ago
I don’t think the point is turning communities into NY and LA. The world is full of places that are neither single family homes only or skyscrapers only. Yet America has a weird attachment to (exclusively) single family homes and car-dependent life. I believe that communities and small cities could be a more vibrant and livable place when they are slightly denser and more walkable. My smallish city is 20 miles south of SF and it’s becoming more and more walkable and bikeable unlike sprawling San Jose or mansion-only Atherton.
hindsightbias 4y ago
What was interesting to watch was all the early anarcho/libertarian techies moving to the city because they couldn’t rent/buy anything in the valley and then see the jealousy of the latter anarcho/libertarians techies who were late to the party. *IMBYism is just a function of their arrival to the orgy. Anecdotes aside, they’re not YIMBYs, they’re mostly YIYBYs. When you talk to them, talk about building towers on Valencia or Dolores. They’ll quickly pivot to what other people need to be doing in Karland. Given that HN sees SF as a Hellscape now, we did them a favor.
- jollybean 4y ago
  It has nothing to do with 'yimby/imby/anarcho' anything. People who live in quiet communities generally don't want their areas turning into Manhatten, that's it, it's the same everywhere.
abigail95 4y ago
Policies against density and development are so harmful that areas of London that were bombed in WWII are more productive today that those untouched. If your policy makes blown up rubble more valuable, it's a bad policy. > And FYI there's no evidence that 'density' decreases prices. The most 'dense' places in the US are the most expensive. What is causality.
- jollybean 4y ago
  If those areas were not bombed, those businesses would have just located somewhere else. 'Productivity / Square Km' is a nonsense metric. It means nothing. It doesn't matter what the causality of high density rent is, what matters is 'affordability' which is a stated object of the 'build out' people.
snickerbockers 4y ago
>If citizens moved into a community because it was 'spacious and quiet' then it's 100% their right to keep it that way, and utterly bizarre that outsider should think they have the right to force some kind of change. No, it's not. If you want the entire town to be frozen in time then you should purchase the entire town. Your right to control development ends at the property line. It's also utterly hypocritical in the Bay Area's case because it contradicts the position taken by most of the local and state governments on immigration; they proudly proclaim their status as "sanctuary cities" where all immigrants are welcome, but at the same time they don't want anybody new (whether they're immigrant or not) moving into their neighborhoods. The NIMBY attitude in Bay Area cities is ridiculous because it's Trumpism on a local scale. They want to prevent "outsiders" from living in their community because they perceive that they are somehow negatively impacted by other people being able to obtain affordable housing. >The 'solution' is probably to have much better/deeper/faster integration between transport services, how in holy cow is there not a 'very fast train' that goes around the bay, out to Sac, down to Morgan Hill, and up to Santa Rosa? With great connectors? because NIMBYs don't want it. They'll complain about the noise, or that it ruins "the view"/"the character"/etc, or that it might indirectly urbanize their town despite no new housing being constructed, or that it'll make it easier for homeless people to come in, etc.

ch4s3 4y ago

Stopping people from developing land to the legally defined limit that they have lawfully purchased is NOT the right of any community. It is in fact a taking and a perversion of the rule of law. Furthermore no one is arguing that density drives down prices. You’re arguing against a straw man here. People are pointing out correctly, and in line with all housing economists, that constraining supply raises prices.

jollybean 4y ago
False on both counts. First, it's 100% the right of communities to establish - and change - zoning laws. Those can change after a property is acquired. More importantly - this issue is not about people having zoning changed from under their noses, rather, it's about developers interested in creating different kinds of accommodation then those that have previously existed under existing rules. They knew what they were getting into when they bought the land. This is not 'zoning rug pull' kind of activity. Second - this push is mostly about issues affordability. Cali legislation was driven by it. "Governor Newsom Signs Legislation to Increase Affordable Housing Supply and Strengthen Accountability, Highlights Comprehensive Strategy to Tackle Housing Crisis" [1] What you are calling a 'straw man' is literally 'the man'. [1] https://www.gov.ca.gov/2021/09/28/governor-newsom-signs-legislation-to-increase-affordable-housing-supply-and-strengthen-accountability-highlights-comprehensive-strategy-to-tackle-housing-crisis/ https://www.gov.ca.gov/2021/09/28/governor-newsom-signs-legi...
- ch4s3 4y ago
  > First, it's 100% the right of communities to establish - and change - zoning laws. That’s not the argument I’m making. I’m saying that communities have no right to arbitrarily block uses that comply with existing code. This is a rule of law issue. SF has admitted to violating state law which supersedes local law. Again, my point is that YIMBYs are not making the claim that density per se drives down costs. But yes arbitrarily restricting housing supply does create affordability issues. The NIMBYs of SF in the end if they win will find that they have created a museum of SF.
- stale2002 4y ago
  > First, it's 100% the right of communities to establish - and change - zoning laws Ok, well it is also the right of the state to make laws and force these communities to change, under threat of government force. Which is what is happening right now. There are going to be lawsuits that force communities to allow people to do what they want, with their own property. Go win a state election if you disagree.
masonic 4y ago
That "legally defined limit" is defined by zoning. So one can't say that they support maintaining existing limits and yet want existing zoning unilaterally ended.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  The problem is that SF is arbitrarily denying projects that comply with existing zoning and violating state law in doing so.
mike50 4y ago
Its the rate of change in prices that is hopefully moderated by building more houses.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  I think you’re agreeing with me.

ziddoap 4y ago

>If citizens moved into a community because it was 'spacious and quiet' then it's 100% their right to keep it that way I'm not from the US, would you able to explain why this is a 'right'? Especially when, from my loose understanding of the situation, the state law seems to be on the side of those you call "outsiders"?

jollybean 4y ago
Because it's their home, and they literally own the land. Irrespective of the legalities, you do realize zoning is an almost universal concept? You do realize that you can't just waltz into some neighbourhood, and screw everyone over by building a giant skyscraper in the middle of their land? (Even if this law were supposedly upheld) Probably over 90% of communities in the US, even those with more open zoning, wouldn't allow any arbitrary thing to be built. Finally, it's debatable if the 'state law' is on their side, or even if it's constitutional. A better question would be why you think you have a right to go into a quiet community and screw everyone over? Your actions affect others. If the community doesn't want some thing, then go elsewhere. There's plenty of land. In a place like Hong Kong, where land is very scarce, you run into a completely different set of social issues, with the poor being held to the economic wall otherwise. There's plenty of space in the US, even in Cali.
- briandear 4y ago
  Fun fact: Houston doesn’t have zoning and somehow it works just fine. There are deep restricted communities but you know that before you buy there.
  - quacked 4y ago
    You've never lived in Houston, have you? It's a depressing concrete swamp with high cancer rates. The defining aesthetic is "strip mall" and the traffic is from Hell. The nice parts are the parts filled with rich NIMBYs, like the Rice campus and the wooded neighborhoods to the west of downtown. Edit: I forgot to mention all the cheap housing built by profit-hawks on flood plains that was destroyed or severely damaged in Harvey.

thatfrenchguy 4y ago

> If citizens moved into a community because it was 'spacious and quiet' then it's 100% their right to keep it that way You and I bought our land, not the right to do whatever around. You need to come around to the fact that California is going to get a lot denser when the boomers are dead.

jollybean 4y ago
You need to come around to the fact that people who live in areas have the right to live they they want. You need to come around to the fact that 'density' is a worthless metric, that has little advantage. It's laughable that you think 'boomers' are the one's who want to live in peace and quiet, that's 99% of people. Almost anyone, were they able to move to Atherton, would not want low cost density next to them. FYI people are leaving Cali, build better transport and it'll solve a lot of these problems.

winkeyless 4y ago

I don’t think the point is turning communities into NY and LA. The world is full of places that are neither single family homes only or skyscrapers only. Yet America has a weird attachment to (exclusively) single family homes and car-dependent life. I believe that communities and small cities could be a more vibrant and livable place when they are slightly denser and more walkable. My smallish city is 20 miles south of SF and it’s becoming more and more walkable and bikeable unlike sprawling San Jose or mansion-only Atherton.

hindsightbias 4y ago

What was interesting to watch was all the early anarcho/libertarian techies moving to the city because they couldn’t rent/buy anything in the valley and then see the jealousy of the latter anarcho/libertarians techies who were late to the party. *IMBYism is just a function of their arrival to the orgy. Anecdotes aside, they’re not YIMBYs, they’re mostly YIYBYs. When you talk to them, talk about building towers on Valencia or Dolores. They’ll quickly pivot to what other people need to be doing in Karland. Given that HN sees SF as a Hellscape now, we did them a favor.

jollybean 4y ago
It has nothing to do with 'yimby/imby/anarcho' anything. People who live in quiet communities generally don't want their areas turning into Manhatten, that's it, it's the same everywhere.

abigail95 4y ago

Policies against density and development are so harmful that areas of London that were bombed in WWII are more productive today that those untouched. If your policy makes blown up rubble more valuable, it's a bad policy. > And FYI there's no evidence that 'density' decreases prices. The most 'dense' places in the US are the most expensive. What is causality.

jollybean 4y ago
If those areas were not bombed, those businesses would have just located somewhere else. 'Productivity / Square Km' is a nonsense metric. It means nothing. It doesn't matter what the causality of high density rent is, what matters is 'affordability' which is a stated object of the 'build out' people.

snickerbockers 4y ago

>If citizens moved into a community because it was 'spacious and quiet' then it's 100% their right to keep it that way, and utterly bizarre that outsider should think they have the right to force some kind of change. No, it's not. If you want the entire town to be frozen in time then you should purchase the entire town. Your right to control development ends at the property line. It's also utterly hypocritical in the Bay Area's case because it contradicts the position taken by most of the local and state governments on immigration; they proudly proclaim their status as "sanctuary cities" where all immigrants are welcome, but at the same time they don't want anybody new (whether they're immigrant or not) moving into their neighborhoods. The NIMBY attitude in Bay Area cities is ridiculous because it's Trumpism on a local scale. They want to prevent "outsiders" from living in their community because they perceive that they are somehow negatively impacted by other people being able to obtain affordable housing. >The 'solution' is probably to have much better/deeper/faster integration between transport services, how in holy cow is there not a 'very fast train' that goes around the bay, out to Sac, down to Morgan Hill, and up to Santa Rosa? With great connectors? because NIMBYs don't want it. They'll complain about the noise, or that it ruins "the view"/"the character"/etc, or that it might indirectly urbanize their town despite no new housing being constructed, or that it'll make it easier for homeless people to come in, etc.