[HN Gopher] Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment... ___________________________________________________________________ Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts Author : seryoiupfurds Score : 74 points Date : 2022-03-15 21:13 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.latimes.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.latimes.com) | pmalynin wrote: | Next cancel Prop 13, or phase it out over the next 5 years. | [deleted] | bcrosby95 wrote: | That would require a proposition. | outside1234 wrote: | The bill we need is something that blanket allows building of | multistory multifamily housing across the state without local | review. | | Sort of something similar to the law we passed around ADUs but | for multistory multifamily housing. | jonahhorowitz wrote: | Looks like the California legislature can move fast when it wants | to. Now fix the rest of CEQA. | shitlord wrote: | CEQA is just one symptom of the problem. Entrenched interests | will use anything at their disposal to prevent development: | zoning regulations, building codes, concerns about | racial/socioeconomic equity, legal stalling tactics, etc. | bubblethink wrote: | Wouldn't this increase property values and rent too? What was the | angle for NIMBY objection ? It seems like this will only increase | demand but not the supply - an ideal NIMBY outcome. | vorpalhex wrote: | > Assemblyman Vince Fong (R-Bakersfield) noted that environmental | standards are not being changed. "We are changing what they apply | to," he said. | | Either the environmental review standards are good and needed.. | or they are not. This is post-hoc ruling and I am curious how the | court will react. | | The only thing the opposition needs to do here is run a few | pressers with homeless students. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | The environmental review process is broken [1]. | | [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/13/opinion/berkeley- | enrollme... | gamblor956 wrote: | The issue was not that the environmental standards are | good/needed or not/not. The issue was that the environmental | standards are good but that this case was not actually related | in any way to the environmental standards review envisioned by | the legislature when it originally passed the underlying law | that allowed this lawsuit to proceed in the first place. | | The legislature simply updated the law to make it clear that | these types of lawsuits (i.e., over activities which don't | directly relate to construction of new buildings even though | they may ultimately lead to new construction) are not intended | by the original law, and this new law makes that explicitly | clear. (The eventual construction of new buildings required by | the enrollment increase would be covered by normal CEQA review | processes.) | renewiltord wrote: | Sure, but lots of things are unnecessary and we can't get rid | of them because they are politically dangerous to touch. So we | chip away at the ugliness bit by bit. No purity here: you take | every yard you can get. And if I have to lie and say "CEQA as | it stands is great, but occasionally there are situations where | it is a bad fit" just to get people to let me take a step | forward, then I'll lie. | exogeny wrote: | Good. NIMBYs are a huge problem, and any argument predicated on | "preserving the character" is disingenuous at best and racist at | worst. It's sad that legislation once designed to do so much good | has been weaponized by such obstructionists. | rablackburn wrote: | > any argument predicated on "preserving the character" is | disingenuous at best and racist at worst | | Calling NIMBYism's "preserving the character" argument | disingenuous is probably going too far. That really is the | problem many NIMBYs have with proposed developments. They like | their neighbourhood exactly how it is, and if they could | mandate perfect stasis they would. | | It may not be a persuasive argument, but in many cases it is | genuine. | kaibee wrote: | > They like their neighbourhood exactly how it is, and if | they could mandate perfect stasis they would. | | Y'know, if a community wants to have _perfect_ stasis like | that, it should be allowed. Which of course also means that | when you sell your property, any gains in land value should | also be taxed away and the property's max rent should also be | locked in at purchase time. This would of course, even more | preserve the character of the neighborhood. Otherwise it is | too convenient for NIMBYs that their policy preference also | happens to align with their economic interests. | | (/s obviously, though a land value tax would be excellent) | ketzo wrote: | If nothing else, I hope Newsom can cement an identity as the | "anti-NIMBY governor." | | S.B. 9 [1] was a great step. This also sends a pretty stark | message. | | [1] https://focus.senate.ca.gov/sb9 | jeffbee wrote: | This is a significant repudiation of the NIMBY point of view. | When was the last time that literally every statewide elected | official came together to unanimously pass a law over the span of | 4 days? Californians of every party are united in the belief that | Phil Bokovoy is a jerk. | favorited wrote: | Funny how the "they can't accept N students, there's not enough | housing!" guy is simultaneously the "don't build any new | housing" guy. And, as luck would have it, he's also the "don't | increase density in existing housing structures" guy. | | What are the odds? | stingrae wrote: | also the "lives in New Zealand 50% of the time" guy | jeffbee wrote: | Also the "converted a duplex into a one-man home" guy. | | Also the "parks on the street for free" guy. | | What a surprise. | gyc wrote: | Whether they represent a liberal district or a conservative | district, every legislator in California represents a | significant number of constituents who wants their kids to go | to Cal. | falcolas wrote: | Seems like an odd move to undercut the checks and balances courts | are supposed to have over legislation. Enacting a law solely to | undercut a court's decision seems spurious, and may blow back on | both the legislation _and_ the school. | paxys wrote: | More like - legislature passed a law, a certain group of people | took advantage of the law in ways the general public didn't | intend, the courts said "we have to rule by the letter of the | law", legislature amended the law, now most people happy again. | This is _exactly_ how the process should work. | throw_nbvc1234 wrote: | This 1000%. The check that courts have over legislature is | constitutionality. If a law is not what the legislature | intended (or if the intention has changed) then they have the | power to change their minds. Courts do not make laws, they | interpret them. | | Problem is that legislature has (in general) stopped doing | their job so the "functional" court system is forced to re- | interpret older and older laws; increasing their power | relative to the other branches. | howinteresting wrote: | The way the American system works is that the legislature has | the final say over statutory law, while the courts have the | final say over constitutional law (modulo amendments). | bhupy wrote: | That's not true, the legislature has final say over both | statutory and constitutional law; it's just that the barrier | to amending the constitution is higher than amending / | passing statutory laws. | | The Court's job is to interpret the law of its jurisdiction. | If the legislature doesn't like the Court's ruling on some | statutory law, it would then go through the process of | amending the law. If the legislature doesn't like the Court's | ruling on some constitutional matter, it would then go | through the process of amending the Constitution. The latter | process usually requires sufficiently more political will | that sometimes a Court's ruling on a Constitutional matter is | "final" from a practical standpoint. | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | The exact opposite. The legislature (which passed this | unanimously) AND the governor passed this legislation as a | check on the power of the court. This happens all the time, | e.g. famously when the US passed the 16th amendment to allow | income tax. | colinmhayes wrote: | Really they're just undoing a law that has had many | unintended consequences. The court was just ruling based off | this CEQA, so the legislature fixed the it. | falcolas wrote: | They're interfering with a private lawsuit, and changing laws | with retroactive effect to do so. That's what's so odd about | this. | gamblor956 wrote: | No, they're addressing a private lawsuit that was only | permitted to proceed because of the court's erroneous (but | reasonable) interpretation of the prior law. | | So the legislature changed the law to make it explicitly | clear that these types of lawsuits were never intended by | the law. | vkou wrote: | Courts can only serve as checks and balances in three things: | | 1. Determining whether an executive action is consistent with | legislated law. | | 2. Determining whether a piece of legislature is consistent | with a more important piece of legislature (Constitutionality.) | | 3. Determining how two contradictory pieces of legislature are | to be interpreted in practice. (A superset of #2.) | | A court rules on the current state of law. Based on that | ruling, the legislature can change the law as it sees fit, | within the constraints that it operates under. | | They are not a back-door way for people to subvert the power of | legislature to draft laws those people don't like. If they | were, they would be utterly absurd, because without the power | to draft legislature, nobody would have a check or balance | _over_ the courts. | xadhominemx wrote: | The court didn't have a personal opinion on the matter. They | interpreted the statute. So the legislature changed the | statute. | 0xcde4c3db wrote: | I think what we're seeing _is_ the checks and balances in | action. The courts can only "interpret" so forcefully before | they're essentially usurping the authority of the legislature, | so courts will sometimes make a "bad" ruling as if to say | "we're just applying your crappy law; if you don't like it, | amend it" (particularly sassy judges might be more direct about | this). | [deleted] | gamblor956 wrote: | _Seems like an odd move to undercut the checks and balances | courts are supposed to have over legislation. Enacting a law | solely to undercut a court 's decision seems spurious, and may | blow back on both the legislation and the school._ | | That is literally how the legislature is supposed to act when | it feels that the court has erred in interpreting legislation. | scotuswroteus wrote: | Yeah and the sun may not come out tomorrow. This doesn't | undercut a court's decision. The court interpreted the rules | that the state legislature passed, and now that an unintended | consequence of the prior passed rule manifested, the state | changed the law. That's actually how it's supposed to work. | jeffbee wrote: | I've seen this take a lot in the last half a day and it makes | no sense at all. The court rules on the law. It's an ordinary | statute, and the legislature changed it. There is no checks- | and-balances conflict here. The statute says whatever the | legislature says it says. | rablackburn wrote: | Yeah, from what I understand this is exactly how the | separation of judicial and legislative powers is _meant_ to | work. | | The court's power is to interpret what is written. The | legislature's power is to write the words. If the legislature | doesn't like how the court interpreted the statute they're | meant to rewrite it so that the intention is clearer. | paxys wrote: | Good. I wish they'd sign more such laws to deal with all the | property developments across San Francisco that are stuck in | years-long "environmental review" or other similar bureaucratic | hurdles put forward by NIMBY groups. | edm0nd wrote: | That'll never happen. One of the main reasons SF even has a | housing crisis is because they refuse to allow people to build | multiple levels upwards bc of zoning. | bradly wrote: | > That'll never happen. One of the main reasons SF even has a | housing crisis is because they refuse to allow people to | build multiple levels upwards bc of zoning. | | Couldn't the Gov. sign another law stopping that as well? | Similar to the legislation around single family housing lots? | smugma wrote: | What's more feasible is that CA HCD (Housing and Community | Development) rejects SF's plan as not consistent with state | law, as they recently did to LA[0] (even though LA's plan | was really pro-housing overall, there were some equity | issues that HCD was unhappy with). | | SF is considering allowing any property have a 4-plex (6 if | at a corner), which may be used as a poison pill to | continue to restrict development [1]. | | [0] https://www.latimes.com/homeless- | housing/story/2022-02-24/la... | | [1] https://reason.com/2022/03/09/san-franciscos-efforts- | to-bloc... | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | Okay - serious question - with current building codes - | how does anyone tear down a house in SF and rebuild | anything - let alone split a narrow lot in 2 and build | two duplexes on that? | | The duplexes would be like 30% stairs, right? This seems | like a $5M investment to end up with 4 500 sqft 1-window | studios that would be absurdly cashflow negative, and | none of them would sell for $1M... SB 9 economically does | not seem to work out for almost every lot in SF proper. | | So if SF doesn't want anything to happen - wouldn't the | best thing be to just keep things as they are? | | The SF proposal similarly seems like garbage. The vast | majority of homes cannot just magically become | quadplexes. There's not enough stairs to pass fire code. | conanbatt wrote: | What you have now was passed by Gov. | bradly wrote: | Yes. That was the point of my comment :) | nr2x wrote: | (High speed rail...) | mistrial9 wrote: | A college town that was filled with ordinary college commotion is | largely silent day and night. The streets of Berkeley, California | near campus are empty for more than a year now. University | Avenue, a major road leading to campus is quiet day and night, it | used to be filled with cars, music and daily activity. Half of | restaurants and most retail have closed in the last two years; | parties are hidden due to covid-19. What has replaced it in the | downtown and flatlands are super-scary predatory criminal loners, | hard core drug-addicted mentally ill and some of the most | expensive housing in the United States. Landlords feasted on the | rental income derived from "market forces" of thousands of | 20-somethings working for FAANG and bio-tech. The homes in the | hills are overflowing with paper income, and the covid-19 rates | are among the lowest in the western US due to a combination of | factors. | | It is a stunning turn of events, worthy of Heinlein. The behemoth | schools that are UC Berkeley continues to bring in nine-figure | money with off-shore students paying high tuition, looking for | their chance to strike it rich in the high tech scene, while | those of ordinary means are economically crushed. | xadhominemx wrote: | What's your point? | jeffbee wrote: | Yeah, the streets are so empty in Berkeley these days that when | I took these photos on Saturday it was literally just | tumbleweeds, not hundreds of people gathering in the streets of | southside. Truly, a hell-hole. | | https://twitter.com/Jeffinatorator/status/150278067270801408... | nomel wrote: | A synthetic gathering is not related to the reduction in the | natural hustle and bustle. Do you have any pictures before or | after that group passed through? | dougmccune wrote: | This is so far from reality I have a hard time even knowing how | to respond. Just in case people who don't live here think the | Bay Area cities have become this dystopian hell hole as | described, no, they absolutely have not. Life is honestly | nearly back to normal. I'm going out to dinner with a friend in | Berkeley tonight. The streets will not be empty or filled with | drug addicts. | Fauntleroy wrote: | I get what you're saying, but honestly both of your comments | are true. You'll be going out to dinner in Berkeley with a | friend _while_ the streets are "filled" with our homeless | problem. There are also definitely far fewer college students | in the area than there were 2 years ago. | dougmccune wrote: | Homelessness has definitely increased in the last 2 years, | as it has throughout all of California. The high cost of | housing and income inequality are absolutely massive | problems that have gotten significantly worse since the | onset of the pandemic. We certainly have problems, and | housing costs and drug overdoses are absolutely serious | issues that are trending the wrong way. But to claim that | Berkeley is a ghost town with almost no retail and half of | restaurants shuttered is just pure fiction. I drove through | campus the other day and a group of kids was playing beer | pong on their front lawn. People are everywhere. The | commercial areas are back with foot traffic. It's not | anything like the original commenter described. It's like | they went out once in March 2020 and then never left the | house again. | KerrAvon wrote: | I'm having trouble recalling a Heinlein story with any | relevance here | ketzo wrote: | Don't you remember that classic Heinlein story, "This Place I | Like Isn't The Same As It Used To Be"? | sergiomattei wrote: | This has been practically every college town since the pandemic | started. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-03-15 23:00 UTC)