4 ms·

> ... near transit hubs. I don't understand this narrative that California has been pushing the last few years - basically, "There's a bus stop in the neighbor

> ... near transit hubs. I don't understand this narrative that California has been pushing the last few years - basically, "There's a bus stop in the neighborhood, therefore we can add a bunch of new housing without doing any other infrastructure upgrades." I just don't see it. What I do see after new housing is added is insufferable traffic and no parking - and empty buses.

Rebelgecko 1y ago
Probably 99% of bus stations aren't relevant for SB79. I think the goal is to make it more like dense cities outside of California (NYC, Paris, Tokyo, etc) where car ownership can be unnecessary or even a liability. Public transit is a lot more scalable than cars. A train that only has 50 people on it may look nearly empty but it's better than having 40 cars on the road.
SilverElfin 1y ago
HN has one particular view, which is to keep increasing density without care for any other factor. But density does change neighborhoods and quality of life in many negative ways, including the example you shared. Someone may get to move into that area at a lower price. But someone else loses what they had. I don’t understand why those who demand lower priced housing are more valid. And too often, the response here is to attack anyone who brings up the negatives of high density living (edit: here come the oh-so-predictable downvotes). I suspect that is partly ideological, and partly due to age skewing younger here. But I wish there was more tolerance for mid-size towns that don’t get density forced on them, but can stay a healthy balanced size because that’s what the locals want to hold onto for their own quality of life.
- AlotOfReading 1y ago
  The people who want small, mid-sized towns are free to live literally anywhere they want outside major metro areas. There's 90+% of the state by land area left to them. This discussion is and has always been centered around the housing crisis in urban centers, where it's been illegal to build density for decades. This has caused issues where those urban centers can't afford for people to provide critical services ( like teachers, laborers, medical staff, social services workers, etc) because housing simply doesn't exist at a price they can afford. Unless the suggestion is to make do with crumbling community services, housing reform is mandatory.
  - SilverElfin 1y ago
    > The people who want small, mid-sized towns are free to live literally anywhere they want outside major metro areas. This is what I was referring to, in terms of HN’s attitudes on this topic. Why should a “major metro area” change to accommodate newcomers? It should just stay serving its current residents, who may want it to stay the size it is. The ones desiring to live there at a price they can afford are the entitled ones. They could be the ones to choose to live “anywhere they want outside major metro areas”. Major metro areas also don’t just come in one size. There are larger cities and smaller ones, denser ones and less dense ones. And it is perfectly valid to want a smaller one.
    - smugma 1y ago
      The state is passing laws to serve its current residents. The state believes local control has not benefited Californians as a whole. I happen to live in an expensive home in a dense area and I agree with the state.
    - chabska 1y ago
      Because "current residents" also include the children and teenagers currently living there? You act like young adults are 100% flown in by storks, as if the city doesn't itself procreate, as if school children doesn't grow up into young adults.
      - floxy 1y ago
        Any good sources showing how much various cities' fertility rate contributes to their population growth?
        lotsofpulp 1y ago
        They don’t contribute, as they are all below replacement rate. https://www.newgeography.com/content/007550-total-fertility-rate-metros-san-francisco-lowest-jacksonville-highest https://www.newgeography.com/content/007550-total-fertility-... Probably true worldwide except maybe Africa and Middle East.
epistasis 1y ago
You are mistaken on the basic facts of where this permits more hosing. You also do now understand people in urban areas and their desires. For example look at Seattle, which has added a lot of population, but only added 1 car per 30 new people: https://www.theurbanist.org/2025/09/07/while-seattle-population-spikes-car-population-stalls-out/ https://www.theurbanist.org/2025/09/07/while-seattle-populat... For a few generations, 99% of housing that was built was car dependent. That's not what the market wants. So when options are provided that allow living without a car, people flock to it.
- doctorpangloss 1y ago
  While I wholly support density and bike everywhere myself, I don’t know if “people are getting poorer in Seattle” is the win “The Urbanist” thinks it is.
  - smugma 1y ago
    Median income growth slowing or decreasing does mean things are working well. We don’t want middle class families being shut out of our housing markets and working class folks needing two hour commutes to come support our cities. Every affordable housing project that gets built slows the growth of the area AMI.
  - epistasis 1y ago
    I can only guess what you mean here, but if you assume that people who don't own cars are poorer than those with cars, you are wrong and don't understand wealth. Those who move to cities and can live without cars have far higher incomes than median, and because they are not burning the average of $700/month on a car, they accumulate wealth far faster. If I have misunderstood your assumption, please correct me, but the "only poor people don't have cars" fallacy is the only way I can make sense of your comment, and the only people I have heard express it are deeply out of touch with the modern world.
    - doctorpangloss 1y ago
      Seattle median income growth is the lowest it has ever been in the last three years, since 2022, in low single digits compared to its past high-to-double-digit growth since 2013. In a completely positivist sense, it would be really improbable for that to occur and also for reduced car ownership to be associated with greater wealth. Of course, reduced car ownership is pretty much associated with lower wealth everywhere in the world, like with pretty much owning anything, like homes or expensive degrees or whatever. There are a FEW things that decline with greater wealth, like number of children, that buck intuition, but it’s not super clear what the cause and effect is. Suffice it to say, if what you were saying is true, which is improbable - I’m not saying impossible, just really improbable - we would be talking about it way more. Now why you have to go and call me out of touch and all these big harrowing names, I don’t know. I’m just trying to talk about what is likely to be occurring. People make less money and cars are more expensive so fewer people own cars: that shouldn’t be a controversial POV.

Rebelgecko 1y ago

Probably 99% of bus stations aren't relevant for SB79. I think the goal is to make it more like dense cities outside of California (NYC, Paris, Tokyo, etc) where car ownership can be unnecessary or even a liability. Public transit is a lot more scalable than cars. A train that only has 50 people on it may look nearly empty but it's better than having 40 cars on the road.

SilverElfin 1y ago

HN has one particular view, which is to keep increasing density without care for any other factor. But density does change neighborhoods and quality of life in many negative ways, including the example you shared. Someone may get to move into that area at a lower price. But someone else loses what they had. I don’t understand why those who demand lower priced housing are more valid. And too often, the response here is to attack anyone who brings up the negatives of high density living (edit: here come the oh-so-predictable downvotes). I suspect that is partly ideological, and partly due to age skewing younger here. But I wish there was more tolerance for mid-size towns that don’t get density forced on them, but can stay a healthy balanced size because that’s what the locals want to hold onto for their own quality of life.

AlotOfReading 1y ago
The people who want small, mid-sized towns are free to live literally anywhere they want outside major metro areas. There's 90+% of the state by land area left to them. This discussion is and has always been centered around the housing crisis in urban centers, where it's been illegal to build density for decades. This has caused issues where those urban centers can't afford for people to provide critical services ( like teachers, laborers, medical staff, social services workers, etc) because housing simply doesn't exist at a price they can afford. Unless the suggestion is to make do with crumbling community services, housing reform is mandatory.
- SilverElfin 1y ago
  > The people who want small, mid-sized towns are free to live literally anywhere they want outside major metro areas. This is what I was referring to, in terms of HN’s attitudes on this topic. Why should a “major metro area” change to accommodate newcomers? It should just stay serving its current residents, who may want it to stay the size it is. The ones desiring to live there at a price they can afford are the entitled ones. They could be the ones to choose to live “anywhere they want outside major metro areas”. Major metro areas also don’t just come in one size. There are larger cities and smaller ones, denser ones and less dense ones. And it is perfectly valid to want a smaller one.
  - smugma 1y ago
    The state is passing laws to serve its current residents. The state believes local control has not benefited Californians as a whole. I happen to live in an expensive home in a dense area and I agree with the state.
  - chabska 1y ago
    Because "current residents" also include the children and teenagers currently living there? You act like young adults are 100% flown in by storks, as if the city doesn't itself procreate, as if school children doesn't grow up into young adults.
    - floxy 1y ago
      Any good sources showing how much various cities' fertility rate contributes to their population growth?
      - lotsofpulp 1y ago
        They don’t contribute, as they are all below replacement rate. https://www.newgeography.com/content/007550-total-fertility-rate-metros-san-francisco-lowest-jacksonville-highest https://www.newgeography.com/content/007550-total-fertility-... Probably true worldwide except maybe Africa and Middle East.

epistasis 1y ago

You are mistaken on the basic facts of where this permits more hosing. You also do now understand people in urban areas and their desires. For example look at Seattle, which has added a lot of population, but only added 1 car per 30 new people: https://www.theurbanist.org/2025/09/07/while-seattle-population-spikes-car-population-stalls-out/ https://www.theurbanist.org/2025/09/07/while-seattle-populat... For a few generations, 99% of housing that was built was car dependent. That's not what the market wants. So when options are provided that allow living without a car, people flock to it.

doctorpangloss 1y ago
While I wholly support density and bike everywhere myself, I don’t know if “people are getting poorer in Seattle” is the win “The Urbanist” thinks it is.
- smugma 1y ago
  Median income growth slowing or decreasing does mean things are working well. We don’t want middle class families being shut out of our housing markets and working class folks needing two hour commutes to come support our cities. Every affordable housing project that gets built slows the growth of the area AMI.
- epistasis 1y ago
  I can only guess what you mean here, but if you assume that people who don't own cars are poorer than those with cars, you are wrong and don't understand wealth. Those who move to cities and can live without cars have far higher incomes than median, and because they are not burning the average of $700/month on a car, they accumulate wealth far faster. If I have misunderstood your assumption, please correct me, but the "only poor people don't have cars" fallacy is the only way I can make sense of your comment, and the only people I have heard express it are deeply out of touch with the modern world.
  - doctorpangloss 1y ago
    Seattle median income growth is the lowest it has ever been in the last three years, since 2022, in low single digits compared to its past high-to-double-digit growth since 2013. In a completely positivist sense, it would be really improbable for that to occur and also for reduced car ownership to be associated with greater wealth. Of course, reduced car ownership is pretty much associated with lower wealth everywhere in the world, like with pretty much owning anything, like homes or expensive degrees or whatever. There are a FEW things that decline with greater wealth, like number of children, that buck intuition, but it’s not super clear what the cause and effect is. Suffice it to say, if what you were saying is true, which is improbable - I’m not saying impossible, just really improbable - we would be talking about it way more. Now why you have to go and call me out of touch and all these big harrowing names, I don’t know. I’m just trying to talk about what is likely to be occurring. People make less money and cars are more expensive so fewer people own cars: that shouldn’t be a controversial POV.