[HN Gopher] Zoning laws are no longer in effect in much of the B...
___________________________________________________________________
Zoning laws are no longer in effect in much of the Bay Area
Author : kyeb
Score : 213 points
Date : 2023-02-16 19:52 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.sfchronicle.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.sfchronicle.com)
| samstave wrote:
| That guy in the Mission District of SF who fought this for
| _decades_ should deserve a windfall...
|
| Ill try to find a link, but basically this guy got initial
| approval to build a building and got hit with a typhoon of zoning
| laws and knew he was in the right, but a bunch of SF NIMBYS were
| fighting him forever and he got F'd...
|
| This guy deserves something like a payout for someone imprisoned
| for no reason.
| abeppu wrote:
| But SF is _not_ one of the cities affected by the builder's
| remedy currently. The article says:
|
| > Among large cities, only San Francisco is in compliance.
| jdlyga wrote:
| I love when crushing bureaucracy ends up crushing itself
| [deleted]
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| https://archive.is/FudmQ
| reducesuffering wrote:
| Hey, it's HN's zbrozek in the article.
| https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=zbrozek
| hummus_bae wrote:
| Neat, I didn't know he posted here. He's one of my favorite
| authors and I've read most, if not all, of his articles.
|
| https://www.z blozek.com
| asdff wrote:
| Whether or not developers take advantage will still depend on
| market conditions and the costs to develop housing. For example,
| recently in LA county voters passed a transfer tax that is
| espected to quiet development somewhat:
| https://www.planetizen.com/news/2022/12/120395-critics-expec...
|
| Plenty of other things beyond taxes add to costs as well. Onerous
| environmental review, having to add amenities like open courtyard
| space or balconies, how many elevators might be required, parking
| requirements, all adds to the cost per unit which leads to fewer
| units built per loan and the need for higher rents to make those
| costs pencil out. Even the amount of time things sit in review at
| city hall has costs. You could very well hit a situation where
| due to these constraints, not nearly as many builders take
| advantage of builders remedy as one might expect. This is part of
| the issue with allowing the onus of adding housing supply in our
| cities fall on an overregulated industry that depends on
| achieving a certain profit margin to function.
| Z_I_F_F wrote:
| https://archive.is/nHQgm
| jollyllama wrote:
| What's to stop a landlord from turning a floor in his apartment
| building into a chicken battery farm now?
| themitigating wrote:
| What size batteries do chicken use? D?
| bluGill wrote:
| Why do you care if they do? Now you should have the right to
| demand that the chicken farm controls the smell, and otherwise
| isn't polluting, but stopping chicken farms completely is the
| wrong solution. The above includes assurance that fire and
| accidents will not spread.
|
| Of course land in the bay is valuable enough that nobody will
| do what you suggest. However that is economics, it shouldn't be
| law.
| noselasd wrote:
| I'll assume there's law controlling animal welfare,
| pollution, building codes for fire, water etc. hazards, but
| without zoning laws are there grounds to control noise,
| smell, traffic etc. ?
| jollyllama wrote:
| I can imagine there's at least a couple of landlords who
| would place a premium on shortening their supply chains in
| such a way.
|
| Where I live, a lot of zoning laws are really ordinances, and
| the enforcement of different aspects of sanitation is split
| between the zoning ordinance and other ordinances. I wonder
| how the new anti-zoning law law handles that.
| runnerup wrote:
| Sometimes there are things are obviously bad and harmful and
| it can be known ahead of time that it will harm people. These
| things should be stopped before they happen in a properly
| functioning society.
|
| If someone invents a way to do it safely, they should have
| the burden of safely proving that first.
|
| If someone wants to stockpile 100 tons of explosive material
| in my neighborhood, I don't want my estate to use the courts
| to find remedy after my section of the neighborhood gets
| leveled/cratered. I want the obviously harmful activity to be
| stopped before the hazard is created.
| fragmede wrote:
| Thankfully it's not quite that level of anarchy, it's just
| that new housing can be built without local governments
| saying "no". It isn't the case that heavy industry can now
| be placed next to an elementary school.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Other laws. Same thing that stops someone from burning down
| your house or robbing you. They haven't suspended all laws.
| mike_d wrote:
| Because the Builder's Remedy applies only to permitting for
| residential projects and homeless shelters.
| AlgorithmicTime wrote:
| You mean other than practical, financial, and agricultural
| obstacles?
| giantg2 wrote:
| They have high rises for pigs in China. So I guess in some
| areas they are practical.
| [deleted]
| hackerlight wrote:
| Laws pertaining to pollution or noise? Zoning laws are
| redundant at best.
| [deleted]
| dmitryminkovsky wrote:
| Battery chicken farms are known to cause cancer in the State of
| California?
| gadflyinyoureye wrote:
| Probably. Everything does. https://www.newsweek.com/heres-
| why-everything-gives-you-canc...
| digdugdirk wrote:
| Is there anywhere to see the list of projects that are being
| insta-approved as they come in?
|
| Also, does anyone know what legal recourse there is to block
| projects that are submitted under the current no-zoning state?
| avrionov wrote:
| Here is an website which tracks projects around bay area:
| https://sfyimby.com
| abeppu wrote:
| An earlier Chronicle article anticipates some ways projects
| will be blocked. It sounds like this isn't the unambiguous
| green light that some articles suggest.
|
| > Environmental review is one such way. Normally, cities
| perform one environmental review for a citywide or
| neighborhood-wide zoning plan. So long as project applications
| comply with those plans, they can piggyback on the parent
| environmental report. But since builder's remedy applications
| often disregard local zoning, cities can ask developers to
| complete a full environmental impact report for a project. Once
| that's done, cities can then claim that any impact -- noise,
| shadows, pollution -- in the report was insufficiently studied
| and demand costly redos. Community groups can also take
| builders to court.
|
| > Cities can further pile on costs for builder's remedy
| projects by requiring infrastructure upgrades like new sewer
| connections. Local governments can also potentially exact
| revenge by making other applications from developers more
| unpleasant -- for instance, by subjecting them to additional
| scrutiny or longer processing times. This threat will likely
| dissuade many developers from pursuing a builder's remedy
| project.
|
| The last portion, where local governments might intentionally
| punish developers, may be why there's not a bunch of large
| experienced developers rushing to submit plans.
|
| https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/builde...
| kneebonian wrote:
| I'll throw out I also know a guy who is a developer, they
| have had enough bad issues working in Oregon alone that they
| have 0 intention of ever touching anything in CA with a 10ft
| pole, simply because it isn't worth it to deal with the
| hassle and the headaches.
| asdff wrote:
| A sinister part of the hassle and headaches are that
| sometimes they are designed to be so convoluted such that
| only certain favorite developers are even qualified to take
| up the project at all. Keeping your friend out of the
| market is sometimes the point.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| There is some talk that builders remedy may be exempt from CEQA
| because of some clauses in its law. It will surely face some
| CEQA suits so remains to be seen how the courts will handle.
| Analemma_ wrote:
| My understanding is that they can still be delayed by CEQA
| lawsuits, which NIMBYs have become very good at, but at least
| CEQA usually only delays projects instead of blocking them
| entirely.
| asdff wrote:
| Sometimes the delay or threat of delay is enough to take a
| project from being profitable to being unprofitable for any
| local developer. This sometimes explains why you have vacant
| lots in areas like the bay area where any and all land would
| be in demand. Doesn't matter how much demand there would be
| if you can't afford to capture it at the pricepoint it exists
| at.
| aggronn wrote:
| Projects can still effectively be denied/delayed from
| discretionary environmental review. State is working on pre-
| empting or expediting that as well for these affordable housing
| projects.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| median residential home prices in Solano County (just north-east
| of San Francisco) went up twenty one percent over one year in
| 2021. The county overall lost population (again) primarily due to
| residents moving out of California.
|
| source: Solano County Govt. Economic Report 2022
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| [dead]
| abeppu wrote:
| > The builder's remedy says that noncompliant cities must allow
| housing at any density and any height, anywhere in the city, as
| long as at least 20% of the new homes are affordable.
|
| https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/builde...
|
| For most places in the Bay Area, is there an existing
| affordability percentage requirement? How much of an increase is
| this? I'm not a development/construction insider, but a quick
| search pulls up a claim that builders often are in the range of
| 10-20% gross profit. Does a 20% affordable unit requirement swing
| a normal project to being unprofitable, even if cities can't
| block it for zoning reasons?
|
| https://buildbook.co/blog/home-builders-profit-margin
| jeffbee wrote:
| 20% IZ is usually a show-stopper when combined with height and
| FAR limits but the idea is that there must be some point in the
| solution space that works with 20% IZ.
|
| San Francisco has IZ set at between 20 and 33% depending on the
| project and this is widely seen as a blanket anti-development
| policy.
| Karrot_Kream wrote:
| Most cities in the Bay with IZ have close to 10% with a few
| close to 20%. Indeed, 20% IZ only usually works in high income
| areas where the market rate for housing is high enough to make
| the affordable unit requirements profitable. Most Builder's
| Remedy housing will therefore be proposed in high income areas.
| samstave wrote:
| This is just a play from high-powered NIMBY SF players to placate
| the devs, landlords, scumlords and hedgies (like blackRock)
|
| Nothing more.
|
| REPLY TO BELOW:
|
| - If they are not hedge funds, then what are they, BE SPECIFIC.
| [deleted]
| astrange wrote:
| A mildly funny thing about vacant housing/everything is
| corporations conspiracists is they can't tell the difference
| between BlackRock and Blackstone. Though neither one is a hedge
| fund.
| occz wrote:
| Zoning laws broadly are probably still in effect, right? I doubt
| you could build something industrial in residential zones. It's
| just the bad parts of zoning that are disabled, if I understood
| the article correctly.
|
| Excellent development in any case. Hope a lot of good dense
| housing gets built.
| potatolicious wrote:
| Yes, also residential "zoning laws" broadly still exist - it's
| just that they are state-level residential zoning regs rather
| than city/county ones.
|
| The implication that this is anarchy is incorrect. Construction
| and zoning are still highly regulated, just by someone else
| this time (FWIW, I fully support this and hope many projects
| built and cities stop crying and get in compliance with the
| HCD).
| mike_d wrote:
| Builder's remedy forbids relevant jurisdictions from rejecting
| residential projects that do not comply with their existing
| zoning codes.
|
| A bulletin from the Association of Bay Area Governments alludes
| to being able to use environmental laws to block the projects
| instead.
| https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-10/Bu...
| dagurp wrote:
| City Beautiful explain it really well [1]. There will still be
| ordinances and deed restrictions.
|
| 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaU1UH_3B5k
| MarkMarine wrote:
| There was a great article about this a couple weeks back:
|
| https://darrellowens.substack.com/p/ca-cities-to-lose-all-zo...
|
| Basically, until these cities get a housing plan validated with
| the state, who is apparently sick of their crap like zoning in
| the middle of an active mall that will not be torn down,
| builder's remedy is in place.
| GalenErso wrote:
| > until these cities get a housing plan validated with the
| state
|
| I could see the cities just refusing to submit any plans at
| all. The state should then make its own housing plans with
| the developers directly. Cities should be cut out of the
| loop.
| MarkMarine wrote:
| They seem to be trying any trick they can think of to avoid
| submitting a valid plan:
|
| https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/bay-area-towns-mull-
| pla...
| avidiax wrote:
| I don't know if Mr. Bean would be considered
| developmentally disabled, but I can't get the image of
| him being driven around while flipping off all the
| affluent people that support this out of my mind :)
| astrange wrote:
| If they don't submit a housing element they don't get to
| have zoning (as they currently don't) and then what's the
| point?
| shuckles wrote:
| There are many reasons it would be good for there to be a
| fallback zoning set by the state if a city is missing a
| housing element. For example, in that case builders could
| propose zoning compliance projects which have less legal
| ambiguity, are consistent with a general plan (and
| therefore already have environmental impacts studied for
| CEQA), and perhaps don't have the same inclusionary
| zoning requirements of Builders' Remedy projects.
| more_corn wrote:
| SGTM
| davidw wrote:
| Congrats to https://cayimby.org/ and https://yimbyaction.org/
| for all their work on this!
|
| Great organizations to get involved with if you care about
| other people being able to afford a place to live.
| encoderer wrote:
| They believe in all kinds of nonsense like, for one
| example, buying hotels to house homeless people.
| shuckles wrote:
| Why is it nonsense for the state to fund shelter programs
| by buying out non-viable businesses (empty motels at the
| height of the pandemic), bailing out both business owners
| and building shelter capacity at much lower cost than
| building it new?
| encoderer wrote:
| Suppose you buy every hotel in the sfba and move in
| _every_ homeless person, totally clearing the streets.
|
| What happens next? Just no more homeless?
|
| No, more homeless will appear. They will fill the same
| corners and tents that you just cleared the month before.
|
| This is not a solution. This is a grift.
| davidw wrote:
| > No, more homeless will appear
|
| It's not like they magically respawn or something. There
| are people who have studied the root cause of
| homelessness, and: it's housing. Sure, other factors make
| things worse, but there's more homelessness where housing
| is expensive.
|
| Which stands to reason: when a thing is expensive, fewer
| people can afford it.
|
| https://homelessnesshousingproblem.com/
|
| That's why, ultimately, the biggest YIMBY win is going to
| be not helping out people currently homeless, but
| stopping the pipeline in the first place by having enough
| housing.
| encoderer wrote:
| They really do re-spawn if being homeless now means being
| given a nice, new, clean place to live. Why wouldn't
| they?
| Larrikin wrote:
| Do you really think people with housing would become
| homeless in hopes of getting a new place?
| encoderer wrote:
| I think there are a lot of people actually living with
| relatives and friends who would "become homeless"
| davidw wrote:
| Once someone has a home, they're no longer homeless, so
| it's a good strategy in some circumstances. Even where
| that person has other 'issues', it's a lot easier to deal
| with those once they're in a stable location.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/14/headway/houston-
| homeless-...
|
| https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/01/home
| les...
| Vaslo wrote:
| [flagged]
| femiagbabiaka wrote:
| Citing an article or publication in rebuttal would be a
| more productive way to make this critique..
| seattle_spring wrote:
| Which ironically would be from something like the Daily
| Wire or Zero Hedge.
| [deleted]
| frosted-flakes wrote:
| Seems like a decent short-term plan, if it were to be
| properly funded and actually run like a hotel, minus the
| profits.
| Fauntleroy wrote:
| Can you elaborate on how this is "nonsense"?
| mikestew wrote:
| Other than calling "nonsense", you haven't really made
| the case against for something that has precedent. Care
| to take another whack at it?
| encoderer wrote:
| $550,000 a unit. Come on. You can't be serious that this
| is a solution.
|
| https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle-business-health-
| califor...
| lapetitejort wrote:
| > CEO John Maceri said the state has set up local
| governments for success, but it will take a combined
| effort of politicians and service providers to sustain
| the program. He estimates conversion costs will be far
| less than $550,000 per unit, the going rate for building
| from the ground up.
|
| I assume this is where you got your number? Why skip the
| "far less" part?
| encoderer wrote:
| Just fast googling. Here's another source at $300k -
| still insane.
|
| https://www.ktvu.com/news/oakland-san-francisco-awarded-
| gran...
| sterlind wrote:
| The only to solve homelessness in a city, definitionally,
| are getting the homeless to move out, or getting them
| housing. Given the insane real estate prices in the area,
| $550K seems accurate to buy them housing. Unless you plan
| to round them up and ship them to camps, or find a way to
| get them jobs that pay well enough to lease a $550K unit,
| you're sort of out of options.
| encoderer wrote:
| Homeless shelters? Seems to be a heck of a lot cheaper
| and more scalable than putting people up in 300-500k
| condos?
| hardtke wrote:
| The same "Builder's Remedy" kicked in last year in many
| Southern California cities when they missed similar deadlines,
| and as far as I know it has led to approximately (if not
| exactly) zero new construction.
| sroussey wrote:
| Under the builder's remedy, a developer can propose any
| housing project, regardless of existing zoning and land use
| codes, and it is automatically considered "approved," as long
| as it doesn't present a clear danger to public health or
| safety.
|
| https://smdp.com/2022/10/24/16-projects-4562-housing-
| units-h...
| cheriot wrote:
| It take years to get construction approved in CA so not sure
| the ending has been written.
| majormajor wrote:
| It takes time.
|
| https://therealdeal.com/la/2023/01/18/shekhters-ws-
| communiti...
|
| Here, for instance: "Santa Monica officials later indicated
| they would wait to respond until WSC filed its full project
| application, which is due six months from the preliminary
| filing."
|
| Interesting that the developer that started the commotion is
| listing some of the sites they started the application
| process on for sale, but not necessarily indicative of it not
| going to happen - "Even as it prepares the listing WSC is
| still moving ahead with the full application, Walter
| confirmed this week." from this Jan 2023 article. Could just
| be looking to offload some risk to someone else who now
| thinks there's enough of a chance of these things getting
| built to pay more for the lots than they would've last year.
| more_corn wrote:
| Something about that turn of phrase makes me smile.
| Intellectual humility while making a strong statement.
| another_story wrote:
| How closely are you following residential home building in
| most of Southern California that you're able to make this
| statement?
| astrange wrote:
| Residential-only zoning is "the bad kind of zoning". It wasn't
| invented to keep factories away from homes; it was /literally/
| invented in Berkeley to stop Chinese immigrants from being able
| to afford homes by running laundry businesses out of them.
| edgyquant wrote:
| You should clarify "in SF" since this isn't true for the
| actual history of residential zoning (which originated in New
| York)
| astrange wrote:
| Well, this article is about the Bay Area.
| mherdeg wrote:
| Gosh, growing up near Cleveland I always thought zoning
| "started" in Euclid Heights. I guess there are lots of
| different firsts?
| beebmam wrote:
| Correct me if I'm misrepresenting you here, but are you
| claiming that the reason that something is invented is always
| the reason why it continues to be used?
| astrange wrote:
| Now it's probably because people don't like "traffic"
| outside their homes, but basically yes, that's why single-
| family zoning is still in place. It's extremely silly to
| want to ban eg corner stores in your neighborhood.
|
| In SF where people have discovered "left-NIMBYism", people
| will now argue that keeping it is fighting racism, but then
| if you go into the suburbs they'll still happily argue the
| original position.
| throw009 wrote:
| And that's a good thing. You don't want to have medium
| industry in a residential area. Laundries aren't grandma
| washing strangers clothes by hand.
|
| That it took racism for the obvious to become law is
| unfortunate but ulmately a win for everyone whose groundwater
| isn't polluted with industrial detergents.
| swampthinker wrote:
| A brave, throwaway opinion.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| Right - but that part of residential zoning still stays,
| right?
|
| It's just that you can build a duplex on a "single-family
| residential lot".
|
| But you still can't teach piano lessons out of your house
| without one of your neighbors constantly calling the city and
| complaining about how you're causing traffic problems, right?
|
| And you definitely can't wash other people's clothes or
| dishes in your house, right??
| eric-hu wrote:
| I did a search to check the history of this claim, but maybe
| I wasn't searching for the right thing. Would you mind
| sharing a link?
| jai_ wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-family_zoning
|
| It's the first sentence in the History section
| edgyquant wrote:
| This disputes the claim it originated in SF and the
| reasons listed. Odd that Wikipedia is centered on SF and
| its claim is backed up by (several experts believe.)
| Looks to me like another example of Wikipedia pushing a
| narrative and pretending it's fact.
|
| https://economics21.org/history-zoning-america-flexible-
| hous...
| enragedcacti wrote:
| Zoning and SFH zoning are aren't the same thing, and
| wikipedia concurs with your article w.r.t. early US
| zoning policy
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoning#United_States
|
| Looks to me like another example of HN guy pushing a
| narrative and pretending it's fact. Or maybe someone just
| made a mistake and a more charitable reading would show
| that there is perhaps not a conspiracy going on but
| instead just a misunderstanding.
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| I admittedly rolled my eyes at the WP link. To atone for
| this, I've copy and pasted the relevant references from
| that line in the History section:
|
| [1] Baldassari, Erin; Solomon, Molly (October 5, 2020).
| "The Racist History of Single-Family Home Zoning". NPR.
| Archived from the original on November 14, 2020. https://
| web.archive.org/web/20201114004918/https://www.kqed....
|
| [3] Hansen, Louis (March 1, 2021). "Is this the end of
| single-family zoning in the Bay Area? San Jose, Berkeley,
| other cities consider sweeping changes". San Jose Mercury
| News. https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/03/01/is-this-the-
| end-of-si...
|
| [4] Ruggiero, Angela (February 24, 2021). "Berkeley to
| end single-family residential zoning, citing racist
| ties". San Jose Mercury News.
| https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/02/24/berkeley-to-end-
| singl...
|
| [5] Yelimeli, Supriya (February 24, 2021). "Berkeley
| denounces racist history of single-family zoning, begins
| 2-year process to change general plan - Council
| unanimously approved a resolution that will work toward
| banning single-family zoning". Berkeleyside. https://web.
| archive.org/web/20210301140957/https://www.berke...
|
| [8] Baldassari, Erin (March 13, 2021). "Facing Housing
| Crunch, California Cities Rethink Single-Family
| Neighborhoods". NPR. Archived from the original on March
| 31, 2021. https://web.archive.org/web/20210331194917/http
| s://www.npr.o...
| Cardinal7167 wrote:
| Why did you roll your eyes at it if it provided exactly
| the correct type of referential value it's supposed to?
| swatcoder wrote:
| Accurate or not, I hate that all of these references are
| from one 6-month regional news cycle. They may as well be
| 1 citation, rather than 5. The excess just makes the
| inclusion of claim look more motivated by political
| investment than a desire to be informative.
| nemo44x wrote:
| No it's just completely untrue. This is a common tactic
| today to say something was created for
| <racist|sexist|homophobic> purposes so the entire concept
| is bad naturally.
|
| See how activists say policing was invented to catch slaves
| or some ridiculous claim. There's a bunch of others.
| astrange wrote:
| I said literally and I meant literally. You can just look
| up the Berkeley city council meeting minutes! That's why
| they said they were doing it!
| wnissen wrote:
| If you have an interest, the most comprehensive book I'm
| aware of is "Zoned in the USA: The Origins and Implications
| of American Land-Use Regulation" by Sonia Hirt. Cornell
| University Press. 2014. ISBN 978-0-8014-5305-2.
|
| She's the one quoted in the LA Times article:
| https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-01-19/single-
| fam...
|
| Full disclosure, I was so impressed with Prof. Hirt's book
| that I wrote her Wikipedia page.
| astrange wrote:
| Also The Color of Law:
| https://www.epi.org/publication/the-color-of-law-a-
| forgotten...
| shkkmo wrote:
| If you want something more rigourous than a wikipedia
| article, that article's oldest source is the 2020 NPR
| article which links to this paper: http://www.schoolinfosys
| tem.org/pdf/2014/06/04SegregationinC...
|
| TLDR: the real estate developer that founded Claremont
| (Mason-McDuffie Co spearheaded by Duncan McDuffie) imposed
| conditions in its titles that explicitly bared non-whites
| and prohibited commercial enterprises. However, those title
| conditions couldn't control neighboring areas, so McDuffie
| pushed to get zoning laws passed that were explicitly
| inspired by anti-chinese laundry regulations in LA. The
| Berkley regulation was "expedited" to prevent a "negro
| dance hall" from opening.
|
| To me, the existence of the anti-commercial provisions in
| the McDuffie title restrictions in addition to explicit
| racial exclusions indicates that racial exclusion was not
| the only motivating factor in adopting single family zoning
| laws. However, the context and immediate usage does make it
| pretty clear that racial exclusion was a significant part
| of the motivation.
| twblalock wrote:
| Most of the existing lots aren't big enough for large
| developments. It's probably going to be more of what we have --
| relatively low-rise apartment complexes and townhouses, with
| carport parking or garages underneath.
|
| I'd also expect more people who have space for ADUs to build
| them, although many of the lots aren't the right size or shape
| to fit one.
|
| The really big, dense housing projects are being built on
| commercial land -- stuff like what is being built in downtown
| Sunnyvale, Santa Clara Square, Lawrence Station, and the
| proposed replacement of Cambrian Plaza.
|
| Notably, all that big stuff is either already finished, or in
| the process of building, and didn't need the builder's remedy
| to get done.
| Karrot_Kream wrote:
| The builder's remedy applies to housing and only housing.
| Nothing else. It doesn't, however, stop developers from
| proposing housing projects in non-residential zones.
| jmyeet wrote:
| I think this article overstates the risks to those wanting to use
| the builder's remedy. It suggests wealthy towns would have the
| means to fight this in court. But the reality is the towns have
| very little legal defense. Just last year, 4000+ new units were
| approved via the builder's remedy in Santa Monica, a rich
| envlcave of LA that has notoriously fought development with
| oppressive zoning for decades.
|
| Also, the point isn't to build giant high rises in the middle of
| Los Altos. It is to bypass restrictive zoning that doesn't let
| you build anything at all other than single family houses on
| large lots. In a lot of Bay Area towns that will be townhouses
| and low-rise apartments. But this can make a massive difference
| to the local housing markets.
|
| The builder's remedy is just one of many measures the state has
| passed in recent years. Others include automatic approval for
| building residential above commercial and bypassing zoning for
| lots with wide rights of way. It all adds up.
|
| Another aspect to this is just because you have an approved
| project, as a builder, it doesn't mean you have to build it. It
| does give you a hell of a bargaining chip with the city over
| something else you want to build however.
|
| All these Bay Area NIMBY enclaves have been fucking around and I
| imagine a large number of them are about to find out.
|
| This week a viral video tour of a high school in Carmel, IN has
| been circulating [1]. For those who don't understand,
| particularly non-Americans, schools are funded primarily by local
| property taxes. This means wealthy towns have facilities like
| this and poorer communities have buildings that are falling
| apart.
|
| This is economic segregation.
|
| A lot of wealthy towns in CA have been fighting state housing
| mandates because they want to maintain their "character". This
| includes some ultra-wealthy towns like Atherton.
|
| One reason I support what CA is doing here is because by allowing
| a mix of accomodation it will increase access to facilities like
| this beyond just the ultra-wealthy.
|
| [1]: https://www.insider.com/carmel-high-school-tour-tiktok-
| publi...
| jeffbee wrote:
| I think it's overstating the case that 4000 units were
| "approved" in Santa Monica. Some guy pulled papers on the
| project. Get back to me if any of them break ground. So far,
| only 899 units worth have filed complete applications and zero
| of these have got anywhere in the rest of the process. I would
| not advise holding your breath.
|
| Cities have various ways to stop projects. They can drag out
| things like demolition permits forever.
| toast0 wrote:
| > For those who don't understand, particularly non-Americans,
| schools are funded primarily by local property taxes.
|
| This was true historically, and may still be true in some
| states, but court cases since the 1970s [1] have been forcing
| reforms on school funding to be more equitable at the state
| level.
|
| [1]
| https://edeq.stanford.edu/sections/section-4-lawsuits/landma...
| GalenErso wrote:
| The next target should be CEQA, the California Environmental
| Quality Act. NIMBYs can endlessly delay new construction by
| requesting CEQA assessments. I am hugely pro-environment, mind
| you, but an environmental assessment for a new development should
| be relatively fast and easy to complete, and it shouldn't prevent
| new builds wholesale except in the direst cases.
| shuckles wrote:
| Exempting infill housing from CEQA is on the YIMBY agenda. That
| said, CEQA only applies to discretionary decisions, so if
| permitting residential development is a ministerial decision
| (i.e. anyone who meets certain criteria is approved), then the
| CEQA review for it is incorporated into the Housing Element.
| That is itself a huge step forward.
| jeffbee wrote:
| I don't think that is current law or jurisprudence. There is
| a bill introduced in this session that will make any project
| consequent to an adopted general, area, or specific plan be
| "not a project" under CEQA. But that's not where we are now,
| which is why cities have to EIR their general plans and then
| every project has another EIR.
|
| Personally, I think they should just write down that anything
| inside the boundary of an incorporated city, built on a site
| that previously had something on it, is not a project.
| shuckles wrote:
| Yes it is: private projects are only subject to CEQA if
| permits are discretionary cf
| https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21723.
|
| In San Francisco and some neighboring cities, every permit
| is discretionary either directly or through ambiguity (http
| s://law.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk10866/files/medi...
| ), but it doesn't have to be that way.
| klooney wrote:
| Especially infill. There are no endangered animals living in
| SOMA.
| asdff wrote:
| Just wait for the SOMA sewer rat to become a protected
| species
| ecf wrote:
| Some millimeter sized shrimp completely altered expansion plans
| for an entire UC campus.
|
| https://www.sfgate.com/green/article/MERCED-UC-expansion-pla...
| bb611 wrote:
| The shrimp were an impediment to a small fraction of the
| planned build, the build was modified with minimal impact on
| the project, and an even more aggressive expansion of the
| campus was completed in the last 5 years without impact.
|
| If anything, that appears to be a successful use of CEQA,
| where a large and important building project was effectively
| balanced with the need to protect wildlife without major
| disruption to the final buildings.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| formulary rhetoric talking point minus details, context or
| expectation of real discussion
| Lammy wrote:
| > NIMBYs can endlessly delay new construction by requesting
| CEQA assessments.
|
| This is my favorite graph for explaining how I can be pro-
| environment without necessarily being pro-Environmentalism(tm)
| https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=gentrification...
| Vapormac wrote:
| https://archive.is/nHQgm (non paywall)
| flerchin wrote:
| Build baby build.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-16 23:01 UTC)