Hacker News Reader

Comment by chongli | Hacker News Reader

clear checklist of what can be built (based on safety and environmental requirements)

Such a thing doesn’t and cannot exist. One of the (many) purposes of environmental impact studies is to stop (for example) a new golf course from destroying a bunch of wetlands habitat for endangered species. If the species can only be found in one small area then there’s no rubber-stamp process that will protect it. These projects need to be studied in detail, on a case by case basis, to determine what impact they’ll have on the environment. There are whole fields of engineering that deal with this subject.

View on HN

Ok, but that's not what OP is advocating for. At the very least there should be streamlined CEQA processes applicable for certain developments in certain areas. IE -- it is not at all crazy for a 4/8/10-plex townhome-style development to be built on a piece of land in San Francisco that currently contains a single family home, or an undeveloped paved parking lot.

Individual parcels of land that are especially exceptional within such areas can be marked as such (think historical landmark designations, though that process is a whole separate can of worms).

Yet currently San Francisco has some of the kafka-esque building requirements for the most common types of buildings AND 4 private golf courses on what would most certainly be classified as protected wetlands today. So clearly today's CEQA isn't even working by your own scenario.

The problem is that this consideration has been weaponized to the point of abuse so bad that some people cynically no longer see deferring to these considerations as something legitimate.

In addition, in the crazy red state I now live, people are slowly filling anything that could be considered wetlands on their property to proactively protect their property rights. So this consideration is now RESPONSIBLE for active wetland destruction and a hostile attitude by many towards wetlands on their property.

SF isn't pristine nature. It's entirely a man made construct.

I doubt you're going to find any meaningful insights from a environmental impact study of a standardized 5-over-1 built in a suburb.

We should ban new golf courses, and reclaim 90% of all golf courses completely. It's a game that uses a ridiculous amount of resources that benefits very little. I'd rather see housing built on existing golf courses.

Fortunately, we don't employ eminent domain because some guy on the internet is sure that something better should be done with the land.

Golf courses generally underpay property tax and services, so you could try and tax them out of existence, the ones which aren't municipal at least. Progressive water bills is an option for the dryer parts of the country.

This would be a quick education in the role which golf actually plays in society, I expect.

Just combine the golf courses and cemeteries! Problem solved.

This conversation is about housing, not golf courses. In particular, it's about housing in areas where housing is already built.

> If the species can only be found in one small area then there’s no rubber-stamp process that will protect it.

So don't zone that area for housing. Problem solved.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com