4 ms·

What I don’t understand is that if making it illegal to build whatever living structure you want on public land is “cruel and unusual punishment”, why is it sti

What I don’t understand is that if making it illegal to build whatever living structure you want on public land is “cruel and unusual punishment”, why is it still illegal to build the living structure of your choice on private land that you own? Isn’t such a law even more restrictive? How have we willingly ceded so much authority to bureaucratic busybodys who have nothing better to do than micromanage the size, shape, and even color of private housing? Regulating for safety is one thing, but the current state is absurd. California, and many other states like Texas, need to drastically deregulate their housing markets. Also I hardly think the WSJ editorial board is really interested in solutions here. They just enjoy throwing punches.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> What I don’t understand is that if making it illegal to build whatever living structure you want on public land is “cruel and unusual punishment”, why is it still illegal to build the living structure of your choice on private land that you own Your premise is wrong; making rhe first kind of law has not been ruled unconstitutional, only enforcing it when there is no available shelter for the homeless population.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Couldn't you simply add that conditional statement to the private land case as well? It would be an interesting test case to build an illegal dormitory for homeless on private land and seek enforcement deferment as long as the same conditions are met.
- evancox100 3y ago
  Right, that’s what I mean. Why is enforcing it in either case ok under that reasoning? Clearly building a structure to house an additional person on private land would help keep people off the streets, even if it’s a shanty town. (Which is what we currently have except it’s on public land!)
dontmobile 3y ago
Deregulation has been getting introduced. ADUs have been approved and you can now do something called SB9 which if deployed to the maximum extent allows you to take a single property split it into two parcels and build two duplexes on each parcel. That 4xs the amount of dwelling spaces per property in theory. But of course the capital and will for a Californian who owns property to go through with it is a different story.
- evancox100 3y ago
  CA’s deregulatory moves have been great steps in the right direction, and progress is usually incremental. But realistically the whole Bay Area should be at “if you want to build a 10 or 20 story apartment building on your own land, go for it.” Allowing duplexes on smaller lots is great, but doesn’t go far enough. I actually think the momentum is in CA’s favor and they will be in a better position than, for instance, TX in 10-20 years, as it relates to housing affordability.
  - ProfessorLayton 3y ago
    >But realistically the whole Bay Area should be at “if you want to build a 10 or 20 story apartment building on your own land, go for it.” While I think apartments are fine, it would help immensely if the absurd setback and height requirements were revised to something reasonable. For example, take a standard sized lot in Alameda County (Basically all of the East Bay Area): A standard lot is 5,000 square feet. 50'x100' - Front setback requirements: 20' - Back setback requirements: 20' - Side setback requirements: 5' per side - Max building height: 25' (2 stories max) Total setback square feet: 2,600 out of 5,000 Taken together, it's illegal to build on 52% of the land one owns! Another way to think about this is that one must buy at least 52% more land than necessary to build on. This is completely absurd, and is contributing to the housing shortage throughout the Bay, and the state. Some setbacks are fine, but really, 52%?! Source: https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/ordinance/documents/R-2_DistrictZoningRegulations.pdf https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/ordinance/documents/R-2_D...
  - dontmobile 3y ago
    Agreed. Though the 20 story apartment building is something I don't see happening tbh. The momentum is definitely here but I don't see it reaching that ideal. As with the highspeed rail it will likely hit some sort of deadlock compromise.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
evancox100 3y ago
For real though, if you are reading this, are a YIMBY, and are a person of means, why not try to generate a test case for this? Have someone set up a tent encampment on their own private lot and force the case. How can it possibly be legal to set up a tent in a public right of way, and not on your own property?
- fragmede 3y ago
  https://dignitymoves.org/ https://dignitymoves.org/ is such a project, with city support. They are at the end of Gough st, and have built a bunch of small livable housing units as interim supportive housing for people.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Yeah, I think it's a really interesting thought experiment and social commentary. It's illegal to build a 20 room cinder block dormitory on a private parcel, while legal to build a Shantytown fire hazard in the sidewalk down the street. You could easily build a SRO sized fireproof, cinderblock room (e.g. 10x10ft) for less than $5,000 per unit in materials.
  - evancox100 3y ago
    Yes, someone should do it and be a legend.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> What I don’t understand is that if making it illegal to build whatever living structure you want on public land is “cruel and unusual punishment”, why is it still illegal to build the living structure of your choice on private land that you own Your premise is wrong; making rhe first kind of law has not been ruled unconstitutional, only enforcing it when there is no available shelter for the homeless population.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
Couldn't you simply add that conditional statement to the private land case as well? It would be an interesting test case to build an illegal dormitory for homeless on private land and seek enforcement deferment as long as the same conditions are met.
evancox100 3y ago
Right, that’s what I mean. Why is enforcing it in either case ok under that reasoning? Clearly building a structure to house an additional person on private land would help keep people off the streets, even if it’s a shanty town. (Which is what we currently have except it’s on public land!)

dontmobile 3y ago

Deregulation has been getting introduced. ADUs have been approved and you can now do something called SB9 which if deployed to the maximum extent allows you to take a single property split it into two parcels and build two duplexes on each parcel. That 4xs the amount of dwelling spaces per property in theory. But of course the capital and will for a Californian who owns property to go through with it is a different story.

evancox100 3y ago
CA’s deregulatory moves have been great steps in the right direction, and progress is usually incremental. But realistically the whole Bay Area should be at “if you want to build a 10 or 20 story apartment building on your own land, go for it.” Allowing duplexes on smaller lots is great, but doesn’t go far enough. I actually think the momentum is in CA’s favor and they will be in a better position than, for instance, TX in 10-20 years, as it relates to housing affordability.
- ProfessorLayton 3y ago
  >But realistically the whole Bay Area should be at “if you want to build a 10 or 20 story apartment building on your own land, go for it.” While I think apartments are fine, it would help immensely if the absurd setback and height requirements were revised to something reasonable. For example, take a standard sized lot in Alameda County (Basically all of the East Bay Area): A standard lot is 5,000 square feet. 50'x100' - Front setback requirements: 20' - Back setback requirements: 20' - Side setback requirements: 5' per side - Max building height: 25' (2 stories max) Total setback square feet: 2,600 out of 5,000 Taken together, it's illegal to build on 52% of the land one owns! Another way to think about this is that one must buy at least 52% more land than necessary to build on. This is completely absurd, and is contributing to the housing shortage throughout the Bay, and the state. Some setbacks are fine, but really, 52%?! Source: https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/ordinance/documents/R-2_DistrictZoningRegulations.pdf https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/ordinance/documents/R-2_D...
- dontmobile 3y ago
  Agreed. Though the 20 story apartment building is something I don't see happening tbh. The momentum is definitely here but I don't see it reaching that ideal. As with the highspeed rail it will likely hit some sort of deadlock compromise.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

evancox100 3y ago

For real though, if you are reading this, are a YIMBY, and are a person of means, why not try to generate a test case for this? Have someone set up a tent encampment on their own private lot and force the case. How can it possibly be legal to set up a tent in a public right of way, and not on your own property?

fragmede 3y ago
https://dignitymoves.org/ https://dignitymoves.org/ is such a project, with city support. They are at the end of Gough st, and have built a bunch of small livable housing units as interim supportive housing for people.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
Yeah, I think it's a really interesting thought experiment and social commentary. It's illegal to build a 20 room cinder block dormitory on a private parcel, while legal to build a Shantytown fire hazard in the sidewalk down the street. You could easily build a SRO sized fireproof, cinderblock room (e.g. 10x10ft) for less than $5,000 per unit in materials.
- evancox100 3y ago
  Yes, someone should do it and be a legend.