Hacker News Reader

Comment by seahorserocker | Hacker News Reader

Excellent article.

Here we have it ^, the opposition to housing solutions. Not pitchfork wielding homeowners, but polite good citizens who are NIMBY and disguised as environmentally friendly people who really care for the city's character, as well as blaming the UC.

Please tell me how the massive meth-filled homeless encampment behind the courthouse is being handled in a "progressive" way. By the way they were forcibly evicted 2 weeks ago. The fact that there is any homeless encampment is an inexcusable embarrassment.

Increased density is coming to everywhere in California, like it or not. Thankfully the governor occasionally passes laws removing some NIMBY arguments - though too little too late.

I'm writing this from a converted garage in Santa Cruz that I'm paying nearly $3k/month for. There are a couple ADUs and a zillion AirBnBs, but no multi-family homes around me for miles.

View on HN

> Increased density is coming to everywhere in California, like it or not.

If you're hoping to have a well intentioned, successful argument with NIMBY folks, this is _not_ the way to do so.

People who own the land & houses in an area are saying they do not want this. No matter how much you say "but I _really_ want it, and it's going to happen" is not going to change that.

And they've been winning for _decades_....hoping for yet another election to somehow change that is not a winning strategy.

There are thousands of other colleges in the US - if you make the choice to go to a school that did not have the foresight nor ability to house the students they let in, that is not the problem of the Santa Cruz property owners and tax payers.

Disclosure: I'm not taking sides on this, because I don't live in California (anymore) and bought in a pro-growth city...largely because I evaluated my options and made the choice to live in that type of environment that was more welcoming.

If you're hoping to have a well intentioned, successful argument with NIMBY folks, this is _not_ the way to do so.

The problem is that the entire regulator framework produces self-serving bad faith on the part of NIMBYs, making argument impossible despite these people seeming like nice, reasonable types.

The idea is that a developer offers a design and the locals lodge their objections and if the developer can satisfy these objections, the development proceeds. But when the real goal of the homeowner is no develop at all 'cause any development reduces the value of their home (via supply and demand) then the homeowner learns to offer a wide series of unmeetable demands. This means the only change that's going to happen is change that's imposed by an outside entity like The State of California (if that does happen).

But the GP is right: state law is now forcing these places to increase their density. This isn't wishful thinking, it's the result of a dozen or so state bills which remove density limitations and give teeth to the Housing Element law. I think there's a good argument to be made that the correct people have already been convinced, and the NIMBYs are not winning any longer.

If your plan for living in California is ruined by lots of new construction in the next 5 years, you'd be well advised to brace yourself.

It is coming. Tides are already turning as older folks die off and multiples of younger folks want housing.

It is a nationwide problem however. One seaside town ain't gonna cut it.

> bought in a pro-growth city

Which city is it? A pro-growth city in USA is a news to me.

There are cities that are pro-growth in the sense of not having NIMBY zoning but that have awful urban planning from a transportation perspective. Houston and Atlanta come to mind. Pro-growth perhaps, but certainly not pro-density. I don't know of any city that has both pro-growth housing policy and decent investment in public transportation.

Call it what you want, but the goal was to keep Santa Cruz from turning into Waikiki, Hawaii with high rise apartment buildings lining the ocean. We fought to keep Lighthouse Field from being developed. I think it was worth it even if I can't afford to live there. I'm leaving behind a city that is as nice as when I grew up there, except now there are far too many surfers to make going out enjoyable.

> as well as blaming the UC

I mean UCSC is to blame (for the most part). UCSC keeps increasing enrollment without any concern as to where these students are going to live, knowing full well there isn't any housing available in the city.

Meanwhile the entity which holds the most undeveloped land in the area is UCSC itself!

UCSC has open land to build housing for all the students and then some.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com