[HN Gopher] Building a house in California is not a housing deve... ___________________________________________________________________ Building a house in California is not a housing development project [pdf] Author : zbrozek Score : 53 points Date : 2022-09-08 20:56 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.courts.ca.gov) (TXT) w3m dump (www.courts.ca.gov) | morepork wrote: | Given it's a big lot, could they just build a granny flat | somewhere on the edge, and it would become a "development" as | it's 2 units? There's a cost obviously, but small units like that | aren't _too_ expensive | kazinator wrote: | TL;DR: | | Some well-to-do NIMBYists who own fully detached homes wanted to | prevent some other well-to-do from building, in their | neighborhood, a bigger house than theirs (while butchering the | natural landscape and harming the environment). They prevailed. | | The builder tried to argue that their home is a housing project, | and so legally protected from cancellation by NIMBYists under | some legislation known as the HAA. There was subsequently a lot | of elaborate squabbling over the wording of the law, and whether | plurals like "units" include projects that build one "unit". The | legislation was found to be lacking in clear definitions of its | terms. In the end it was decided that one home isn't a housing | project. | | They set the precedent that someone building an an actual | affordable home in all earnestness can now be stopped by | NIMBYists, if it happens to be just one unit. If you build | affordable housing, you must build two or more to stay within the | protection of the HAA. | | It doesn't seem like a big deal since you'd think most housing | projects subdivide an expensive property into a beehive of tiny | cells anyway. | YeBanKo wrote: | This is where a direct democracy can shine. A simple proposition | that amends AHA to explicitly include single family homes might | put a stop to this. | volkse wrote: | They should apply to build a huge 5 story apartment complex on | that lot, see how the community likes that. The county would have | to approve that development according to that decision.. | outside1234 wrote: | Which is great policy! We need to go up, not out. | 09bjb wrote: | This is how 3-story apartment complexes get approved in my town | :) | ImPostingOnHN wrote: | seems they want just 1 house just for themselves? | | hardly a "development", more like a single home build | CPLX wrote: | It's a single fucking house on a fucking 1.76 acre lot? And these | fucking psychopaths feel like that's too much housing? Like a | single fucking house, on almost two acres? | zbrozek wrote: | The appellate court ruling upholds a Marin County superior court | ruling that building a house is not a housing development | project, and therefore the Housing Accountability Act does not | apply. The stated legislative intent of the law was to remove | barriers to building homes and was widely referred to as the | "Anti-NIMBY" law. | | Now a court in one of the most-NIMBY counties in California has | effectively gutted the law. | r00fus wrote: | Building a McMansion does not increase housing supply where it | matters unless you also believe in "trickle down" economics. | jamestimmins wrote: | Are you assuming that a home was knocked down to build the | mansion? | | Otherwise you're arguing that x + 1 == x. | [deleted] | jeffbee wrote: | This has not gutted the law, as I see it. The state's interest | in the HAA and its enforcement by HCD is exclusively in multi- | family development, _at least_ duplexes and usually larger. | Cities cannot include single-family developments in their | housing elements, for example. | | The ability for a city to approve or deny SFHs will have no | impact on the housing situation in the state. | skybrian wrote: | Was the law interpreted differently before? Have people | previously claimed that building a single house _was_ a housing | development covered by this law, and succeeded, or is it a new | kind of legal argument? | vhold wrote: | The ruling mentions "There is little caselaw interpreting | this statutory definition." in regard to that question. It | mentions one case where building 8 residential units _was_ a | "housing development project" | | It then goes into the fact that the law in question refers to | a "housing development project" in one of 3 ways, 2 of which | definitely don't apply, leaving behind the phrase | "Residential units only", which they then point "units" is | plural, not singular. | | So perhaps.. 2 residential units would have been a housing | development project. | AdamTReineke wrote: | There's also some mention of the original plans calling for | an ADU that was removed when the plan was scaled down at the | request of the city, so the plaintiff was arguing they should | have been covered because it was multi-unit. (If I skimmed it | right.) | codefreeordie wrote: | Reading through this decision, it is clear that there is an | overabundance of motivated reasoning here. The court very | clearly is trying to justify its decision, not reach one based | on the law. | | In particular given the amendment to the law in 2017 which | added, among other things, these clauses: | | > It is the policy of the state that [the HAA] should be | interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest | possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and | provision of, housing. | | and | | > despite the fact that, for decades, the Legislature has | enacted numerous statutes intended to significantly increase | the approval, development, and affordability of housing for all | income levels, including this section | | Both of these quotations are very clearly statements of "fuck | you courts, follow the law", which the court has summarily | ignored, stating that _even though_ it is routine for statutes | to be interpreted in such a manner that singular nouns include | plurals and plural nouns include the singular, that the | statement "only residential units" does not include building a | residential unit and nothing else. | xyzzyz wrote: | > Both of these quotations are very clearly statements of | "fuck you courts, follow the law", which the court has | summarily ignored | | This is very classic for Californian courts and for Ninth | Circuit. | sidewndr46 wrote: | Is an accurate summary of this saying that the court | interpreted "only residential units" as construction of one | or more residences at the same time? | codefreeordie wrote: | they interpreted it as specifically _more than one | residential unit, and nothing except residential units_ | [deleted] | walrus01 wrote: | An interesting term I recently learned from the real estate | industry is not just NIMBY but for the ultimate extreme of | people who start municipal political fights against new | development, BANANA | | Build | | Absolutely | | Nothing | | Anywhere | | Near | | Anything | daniel-cussen wrote: | Landlords you'd figure. Less competition. Less supply. | m00x wrote: | I think your friend was pulling your leg. I'm married to a | realtor and she's never heard that term. It's definitely not | widespread. | skybrian wrote: | It's a joke I've heard before, probably online, but I don't | know in what circles it's popular. | [deleted] | jonny_eh wrote: | It's definitely a common term/joke in pro-housing circles. | I've heard it as far back as 10 years ago if memory serves. | koube wrote: | I believe it's mostly a UK term. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY#BANANA_and_CAVE | mistrial9 wrote: | but she is lying to you! | walrus01 wrote: | It is absolutely a term used in telecom related commercial | real estate when talking about people who ABSOLUTELY FREAK | OUT at the idea of a cellular site monopole going up on a | 15'x15' patch of land behind some local gas station or fast | food place, ruining the atmosphere of their _already | extremely aesthetically pleasing_ strip mall + tract home | suburb. | | The same people, of course, who have a 5-person verizon or | tmobile LTE family plan and spend a huge proportion of | their waking life glued to their iphone or android phone. | hayst4ck wrote: | If demand correlates only with population, and supply is | constant, all those who own housing will see their value go | up as long as the population increases. | | If housing is an investment it means either demand went up | (population growth), or supply did not go up (housing wasn't | built). | | I suspect that if you measure housing price adjusted for | inflation per capita, you would get a measure of housing | supply. | | The fact that house owning individuals financially gain from | limiting housing supply is, to me, the defining feature of | class warfare, even if people don't think they are | participating in it. | | I think this is the basis for the statement "housing can | either be affordable or an investment, but not both." Housing | can either be in adequate supply (affordable) or limited (an | investment). | sidewndr46 wrote: | You're correct, but missing a part of the picture. The cost | of adding supply (to meet demand) goes up each year due to | the perpetual increase in the building codes which must be | conformed to. | hayst4ck wrote: | So if we assume you are correct, if we looked at an | adjusted cost of housing graph (adjusted for | inflation/population), its slope would change primarily | when building code regulation goes into effect? | sidewndr46 wrote: | Yeah that's pretty accurate. Lots of little inflection | points every few years as new things are added. | zajio1am wrote: | Housing can be investment even if it is in adequate supply | and does not raise in value (above inflation), just from | rents / saving from not-paying rent. | burlesona wrote: | The idea that local municipalities get to decide, arbitrarily and | subjectively, what is "compatible with the neighborhood," means | that property rights do not exist. As property rights are the | basis of free markets, it's important that we understand there is | no free market - not even a highly regulated market - for | construction in large swathes of the US, and nearly every | employment center. | | It is perfectly fine to regulate the acceptable parameters of | development, but they can't subjective and arbitrary. That's not | how rule of law works. | pessimizer wrote: | "Free market" is a propagandistic phrase, not a meaningful one. | Markets have rules. You're free to follow them. | ericmay wrote: | > The idea that local municipalities get to decide, arbitrarily | and subjectively, what is "compatible with the neighborhood," | means that property rights do not exist. | | I have a hard time reconciling this. Because I also can't help | but think local governments deciding what they want for their | neighborhood is the most direct form of democracy and | overriding that at higher levels of government seems to be not | ideal. Given that we agree that some level of laws and | regulations must exist, it seems that we're just adjusting our | goal posts. If you're a property my rights absolutist then you | have to also accept edge cases, like Trump flags and 4x4s | tearing through someone's backyard, or someone painting their | house in pink stripes since it's "their house". What kind of | NIMBY are you to deny someone selling their home to someone who | wants to open an auto repair shop? You have to accept these the | same as you accept a new condo tower. You can't pick and choose | here and then go back and claim "well this is reasonable and | this other thing is not" because people can equally claim a | condo tower isn't reasonable. In the case of particularly | desirable places I think it's just a case of too bad, that's | life. Nobody is entitled to live anywhere in particular at an | affordable rate regardless of their priors. The alternative | that you would believe this is the case means someone can | endlessly complain that they can't live in Vancouver with a | view of the sea for $500/month. | | Now on the more reasonable spectrum you can ok I'm not talking | about all of that, I'm talking about a new high-rise in a | downtown area. Sure, and that's more likely to actually happen | to so I'm not sure what the problem is. | | "But teachers and wage workers will be priced out". Yep. And | either wages will rise and residents will be paying $70 for a | latte, or they won't get to have those things because of their | anti-development NIMBY points of view and they'll either accept | that life or they'll give in to change. | | At the end of the day it's all arbitrary and subjective. I | think it's arbitrary that we build highways for cars and | subjectively believe that it's a huge waste of money. That's | messy democracy. | [deleted] | walrus01 wrote: | > means that property rights do not exist. As property rights | are the basis of free markets, it's important that we | understand there is no free market | | Surprise! The libertarian dream of free market property rights | and doing whatever you want doesn't really exist in many ways, | such as, randomly chosen: | | a) you need a drivers license to operate a car on public roads | | b) if you build a new house or office building, its electrical | wiring needs to be done by a licensed/bonded contractor and | meets standards of your local city or county electrical | inspection and the NEC | | c) if you build gas lines in the same place it also gets | inspected and needs to meet certain standards | | d) that new toyota you bought from the local dealer is subject | to a whole host of federal vehicle safety regulations before | its manufacturer is allowed to sell in the the usa | | e) the entire electrical grid in your area is likely regulated | by some state and federal level entities that have an interest | in it not falling over on its face, like the texas-regulated | energy grid during their major winter storm event a while back. | | f) the burger you ate for lunch came from a local food- | health/safety inspected restaurant and the beef from a supplier | that's also subject to regulations and inspection | | g) no, just because you own the land doesn't mean you can start | a leather tannery or fat rendering/reduction industrial | operation on a small scale in your suburban house's back yard, | stinking up the neighbors. | | I could go on... | function_seven wrote: | a) Getting one is a routine process that requires objective | standards be met, and costs nearly nothing. | | b) Again, these are statewide and nationwide standards that | are not subject to local administrative bodies' whims. If | your wiring meets standard, you're allowed to do it. You | don't have to apply to the county and have them decide that | the rest of the neighborhood uses Romex, so your MC armored | cable won't "fit". | | c) Again, these are uniform standards. No subjectivity or | rigourous meetings required for each installatino | | d) See my responses above. All manufacturers are playing on | the same field, and don't have to get permission for every | single aesthetic change. If Toyota decides they're offering | fuchsia as a color option next year, then can just do that. | So long as the clearly-defined standards are met. | | e) See my responses above | | f) But the county doesn't get to dictate which ingredients | can be paired together. If my local hipster burger joint | wants to offer a peanut butter and sardines burger, they can | just do that. No government review required on how tasty it | will be. | | g) Agreed! Free market ideologies are not the same as | anarchism, but many people on seem to conflate the two. For a | market to be free, there needs to be a minimum of information | asymmetry and a minimum of uncertainty. All participants | should ideally know the rules of the game as they enter. If I | buy a property, I should have full confidence that I can | build A or B or C, and also be clear that X, Y, or Z will be | prohibited. | | A free market doesn't mean an unfettered one. It just means | that pricing is transparent, rules are objective (and | known!), and the so called "playing field" is level. There | are a minimum of case-by-case decisions, or rules that favor | one class over another. | int_19h wrote: | OP is not presenting a libertarian dream of _unregulated_ | markets, though. They 're merely saying that whatever | restrictions on the acquisition and use of property exist, | they must be predictable, and they must apply to everyone | equally, which is impossible when there are rather arbitrary | subjective factors such as "compatibility with the | neighborhood" in the process. | robocat wrote: | It is difficult to truely own something in the ideal sense of | the word. Most people pay a yearly fee to "own" their land. You | cannot do whatever you want with your land i.e. you don't | really own it, but instead you own a lifetime tradeable lease. | When you die, the land remains. | | One definition of ownership I like is "can you freely destroy | it without legal consequences?". | | Even "your" body: there are many laws about what you may and | may not do with it (alive and dead). | | There is even a grey area for whether you own your own | thoughts? Maybe you rationally believe you can believe whatever | you like, but actually your thoughts bleed through | subconsciously into your actions which can have severe | consequences. And unless you brought yourself up without human | contact, it is very hard to discern the boundary between your | own beliefs and those of your society. | tmcw wrote: | Subjective and arbitrary is exactly how the law works. | evr1isnxprt wrote: | They did not decide "arbitrarily". If you read it you'd have | read the neighborhood got involved and were calling out the | size, ecological impact. | | Current residents have private property rights too. Both sides | arguing in defense of their rights under the law is exactly how | our "rule of law" works. | | Rule of law does not give you special say over these | proceedings. Clearly for good reason; you seem keen to rush | ahead without considering the rights of others with an | established investment under law. When you can't you'll call | everyone else arbitrary even though an established process and | precedent were utilized. | [deleted] | gamegoblin wrote: | I think the proposal of the Strong Towns organization is among | the best I have seen balancing between YIMBY absolutists and | NIMBY absolutists. | | The problem with NIMBY absolutists is obvious -- it becomes | impossible to expand the housing supply in areas that need | expansion. | | The problem with YIMBY absolutists is also obvious -- it's | probably not ideal to build a 30 story condo tower in the | middle of a neighborhood of single family homes. | | (Though, arguably a 30 story condo tower is better than a | housing crisis, but the Strong Towns proposal is geared towards | never letting a housing crisis happen in the first place) | | The Strong Towns compromise is that it should always be legal | to build the next increment of housing stock relative to | whatever is the most common in the area. Where the increments | are defined something like: single family -> duplex/triplex -> | row house -> low rise apartments -> mid rise apartments -> high | rise apartments. In a neighborhood with a majority of housing | stock at one level, it should always be legal to build the next | level. | | The idea is that it allows neighborhoods to "thicken up" over a | few decades. | oconnore wrote: | > it's probably not ideal to build a 30 story condo tower in | the middle of a neighborhood of single family homes | | You mean because then it would be in their back yard? Or why? | elefanten wrote: | Because the surrounding infrastructure wasn't made for that | density, and it takes way longer to retrofit than it does | to throw up density, lowering the quality of life for the | existing residents. | makeitdouble wrote: | Isn't that a chicken and egg problem ? | | Perhaps you'd authorize that kind of development under | condition of adding sime more infra to support the | additional residents, but in itself getting a tower of | residents doesn't look like an issue. | jelliclesfarm wrote: | You'd have to expand power grid, more water, city | employees, build a new school, parking, roads, shopping for | the influx of new residents, more police, more fire dept | hires. | | Further, no one bought and built a 7 bedroom and 9 bath | room home on an acre lot to live next to a few hundred | people. It's utterly irrational and illogical. | | It completely denies the role of status seeking behaviour | in our societies which is a human universal. We need | wealthy people enjoying all the trappings of wealth and | feel special about their status because it is them who are | subsidizing the vast majority of the rest of the | population. If you don't reward the golden goose, no free | golden egg. Fight the right battle. | sidewndr46 wrote: | Not sure what you're referring to, but having a 7+ | bedroom that sits on multiple lots in a SFH neighborhood | is a single of wealth where I'm at. The fact that it sits | in a dense community near a city is a bonus. | | I've seen some really beautiful homes out in the country | as well, but they aren't that practical unless you are | retired. | akira2501 wrote: | > The idea is that it allows neighborhoods to "thicken up" | over a few decades. | | Which doesn't seem a bad idea.. but where does the level of | employment and services factor into this? If an area expands | economically, you're going to need to expand housing options, | regardless of what was traditionally there.. if the area does | not produce a lot of economic activity, then allowing more | low density housing is ostensibly not a problem. | function_seven wrote: | If property owners have the option to convert single family | homes into duplexes, they can do that. Then if there's not | enough demand for their units, they lower the rent until | they fill the units. If demand is really high, then more | property owners will start converting. If demand remains | high, eventually those duplexes will be cleared out for | some modest apartment complexes. | | For areas that don't have a lot of economic activity, I | think very few homeowners will go through the expense of | converting their properties because they won't be able to | make the money back on rent. In those areas it would be | more efficient to build new SFHs on vacant lots. | | Either way, with byzantine zoning rules out of the picture, | the pricing and incentives to build, sell, or rent will | match the local area much better. | sidewndr46 wrote: | I really don't see how this would solve anything. It'd allow | existing areas of SFH to be slowly converted into duplexes. | It's not like suburbia is going to line up in droves to have | their house converted into a duplex. | | This solves basically nothing because if there were pure | market forces most of America's cities. would have ceased to | be SFH long ago. Slow conversion into duplexes simultaneous | pisses off the NIMBYs and doesn't really help add supply in | any great deal. | | The evening news quote for this would be something like "if | it were up to us, we'd build the new high rise today. But the | city requires us to build several buildings, have people move | in, evict them, then demolish that & start over. Something | has to change with this process" | georgeecollins wrote: | >> It's not like suburbia is going to line up in droves to | have their house converted into a duplex. | | That's just not true! People would do that in the | neighborhood I live in now in Los Angeles if they could | because it would allow you to make the same piece of real | estate about 1.5x times as valuable. | | More interestingly, in Piedmont California where I grew up, | there is a lot of controversy about this. That's an area | that is very desirable -- great schools, pretty, close to | San Francisco -- but also really expensive. Because its | been a nice area for a long time many houses are on huge | lots or even have servant's houses (!) that can be built up | into a pretty nice house. Of course a lot of the | neighborhood hates the idea of converting a single family | lot into two homes even under these posh circumstances. But | the economic incentives are powerful. I see it happening on | my parent very fancy street. | | PS: One of the things that really bugs me (in my | neighborhood and where I grew up) is when home owners argue | about preserving the local character. I grew up in city | where my mom and grandmother grew up. The house I grew up | in was an adjacent piece of land that once had a single | house. Now the neighbors would freak out if you took these | large plots of land and built two houses on them or god | forbid a duplex. But the truth is they haven't lived their | that long and if they did they would know that the | neighborhood has always been changing. I wish they could | make peace with that. | CPLX wrote: | > I really don't see how this would solve anything. It'd | allow existing areas of SFH to be slowly converted into | duplexes. | | Twice as much housing is a lot more housing. | sidewndr46 wrote: | But it isn't. You think all those SFH lots are just going | overnight become a duplex? Why would the retired lady who | walks her dogs and tends the garden care about building a | duplex? | | Now when her kids inherit the home & sell it to a | developer, sure it'll happen then. But that is a slow, | generational process. | jspaetzel wrote: | Yeah exactly, it's a nice slow process that wouldn't piss | people off by having too much rapid change. | sidewndr46 wrote: | I think you need to meet some of the NIMBYs where I live. | ajmurmann wrote: | Moving the baseline like this would certainly help. It's | also helpful to think about areas that are already a little | denser than SFH. Replacing duplexes with small apartment | buildings and medium apartment buildings with high-rises | would have a much bigger impact and this proposal would | make that possible as well. | | The part I wonder about are provisions for mixed use. At | some point some business should be allowed. I think | Japanese zoning has a linear system that covers this: | https://www.rahulshankar.com/zoning-in-japan/ | kitten_mittens_ wrote: | Ending single family zoning in Minneapolis resulted in | something to the tune of 100 permitted duplex projects. | | https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/what-happened- | when-m... | | > Minneapolis had 425,336 residents as of mid-2021, the | Census Bureau estimates, and 199,143 housing units as of | April 2020. By my count the end of single-family zoning has | so far allowed for the permitting of at most 97 new units | (the above table shows numbers of buildings, not units), | some of which haven't been built yet. If things continue at | this pace, ending single-family zoning will have increased | the city's housing supply by just 1% by 2040. | sidewndr46 wrote: | I'm not trying to be sarcastic or snarky here: is this a | serious suggestion that one hundred duplexes (net gain of | about 100 housing units I would imagine) is a significant | change? Or is there a unit error here? | gamegoblin wrote: | Minneapolis did not change the zoning sufficiently -- the | new duplexes and triplexes nearly have to fit into the | same footprint as the equivalent single family home. So | you can have one big SFH or two half-sized duplexes, etc. | | For a single family home, the footprint can't take up | more than 50% of the lot. For a duplex, the footprint | can't take up more than 60% of the lot. Duplex and | triplex projects could be made much more compelling by | loosening these restrictions. | | https://minneapolis2040.com/media/1816/built-form- | districts-... | georgeecollins wrote: | That's depressing. I can imagine the same thing happening | in California because people will think of every other | reason they can to stop you. | gamegoblin wrote: | Problems have solutions, predicaments have outcomes. SF has | put themselves into a predicament. | | The Strong Towns approach is not really a solution for SF | -- it's an approach to prevent the predicament from forming | in the first place. Cities that are on the verge of | becoming the next SF (Seattle, Portland, Austin) should | take heed. | mikebenfield wrote: | NIMBY absolutists exist, and in fact are pretty common. There | really are people who will oppose any new construction at | all, even at the cost of destroying the livability of their | city. | | But do what you describe as "YIMBY absolutists" actually | exist? Maybe they do, but from my perspective I don't really | see anyone arguing that everything should be buildable | everywhere. | kitten_mittens_ wrote: | There's also BANANA (build absolutely nothing anywhere near | anybody) which is perhaps a bit more tongue in cheek. It | also sounds like the "YIMBY absolutists" mentioned in the | GP. | fasthands9 wrote: | If it is economical to build a 30 story condo then you can be | assured the area is either a very dense city or an extremely | rich suburb. I don't think either areas deserves special | protection. | | I suppose I would take the above proposal over the status quo | if it truly eliminated local control - but otherwise seems | like a very long time for a neighborhood to upzone. Its | almost never going to be economical to tear down a SFH and | build a triplex unless the SFH is in disrepair - which may be | after 50 years from initial construction in most cases. | Brian_K_White wrote: | "arguably a 30 story condo tower is better than a housing | crisis" | | This. It means, if you don't want your precious quality of | life messed up, be nicer to all those other people you | normally think you don't have to give a shit about. | | If there wasn't a mass of people with no good jobs or | housing, then there wouldn't be an ugly tower being built in | your back yard. If your neighbor had his own food, he | wouldn't need to steal yours, and you wouldn't have to live | within your own private prison. | walrus01 wrote: | On the other hand if you have absolutely no zoning laws at all | you end up with a sprawling urban agglomeration like metro | Houston. | bugzz wrote: | Houston did/does have laws that are in effective zoning laws. | Parking space requirements, setbacks, etc. | | Also transit systems may be required. I imagine a place with | truly no zoning laws and a transit system would have a lot of | development near stops | monkpit wrote: | Houston is a disaster. Used car dealerships inside of | neighborhoods. Semi trucks on every conceivable road, because | there is a factory behind the elementary school. A metroplex | that takes hours to traverse, without accounting for traffic. | It's the only place I've encountered completely stopped | traffic while trying to go to the grocery store down the | road. I lived in Houston for a few years and couldn't bear | it. | xyzzyz wrote: | God forbid your city becomes like Houston. Nobody wants to | live there, everyone's getting out of there and moving to | California. | ceroxylon wrote: | Local to the area and yes, there are a lot of NIMBYs, however | this is not the best case to illustrate the battle for affordable | and accessible housing. This is a power couple wanting to butcher | their slope (19 heritage trees) to build a mansion unbefitting of | the neighborhood, and then trying to use the HDP law to force the | county to let them do it, despite obviously not fitting the | spirit of the law. | hayksaakian wrote: | For folks in the comments who didn't bother to read the first 5 | pages (the summary) | | The judge interpreted the HAA as only applying to units that | expand housing beyond single family homes. | | The proposed project would be a 4000 square foot single family | home in a neighborhood of roughly 1500-1600 square foot homes. | | Either way I think the law is absurd here, but it's actually | having the INTENDED affect. | | Rather than building a luxurious single family home, the | developer is encouraged to build a multi family home and actually | expand the amount of housing available in the area. | | This seems like a "win" if your goal is to increase housing | supply. | pessimizer wrote: | Next they're going to tell me that putting out my recycling isn't | operating a recycling facility, and I was depending on that tax | break. | mertd wrote: | Should I cancel my pool house "housing project"? | int_19h wrote: | TL;DR: | | "... these statutes do not resolve the meaning of the | unhyphenated phrase "housing development project." As their broad | definitions suggest, the phrase could use development as a verbal | adjective and mean a project to develop housing (a housing | "development project"). On the other hand, the phrase could use | development as a concrete noun and mean a project to build a | housing development (a "housing-development" project), a concept | these statutes do not define. Under the first interpretation, a | project to build a single home would seemingly qualify as a | housing development project, because it is a "project undertaken | for the purpose of development" (SS 65928) and the development | activity consists of constructing housing. Under the second | interpretation, the same project would seemingly not qualify as a | housing development project, since an individual single-family | home is not a "housing development," a term that generally refers | to a group of housing units. ... Given the statutory context in | which the definition of "housing development project" appears and | the legislative history, we hold that the HAA does not apply to | projects to build individual single-family homes." | [deleted] | Panzer04 wrote: | So because your neighbours have small houses, you can't build a | big house? What absolutely inane reasoning. | [deleted] | abeppu wrote: | Under the reasoning laid out here, if you want to build one | house, should you submit plans for a subdivision with multiple | houses so that the HAA does apply, gain approval (and terrify the | neighbors) and then run out of funds for construction as soon as | the first house is completed? | frognumber wrote: | No, that does not follow. | | Law is not a computer program. It's interpreted by human | lawyers and judges. It's not a system of rules. | | This sort of behavior falls under a broad set of rules about | conspiracy, fraud, and similar. If that logic applied, I could | apply for a permit to build an aesthetically-pleasing house, | and run out of funds before the landscaping and exterior | decoration were finished, and build slum housing. Fortunately, | it doesn't work like that. | abeppu wrote: | Clearly, given the number of pages this dedicates to placing | bounds on the definition of "housing development project", | nothing is cut and dry. | | But I have to guess that if you were approved to build 3 | houses, and stopped after building 1, these neighbors aren't | going submit complaints to the county to try to compel you to | build the other 2. | sidewndr46 wrote: | I watched a video about a guy in Hawaii who did the "lite" | version of this. He could only get the zoning approval for | a mansion basically, not the modest house he wanted to | build. So he submitted plans for an absolutely massive | mansion. Complete with a detached garage with a mother-in- | law suite. He even gave it owns HVAC, plumbing, electrical, | etc. All separate from the house. | | He built the mother in law suite, moved in, and the rest of | the house has been "under construction" forever. | YeBanKo wrote: | Imo, they bent backwards to deny this development referring | to ambiguity and trying to follow the intent. The intent of | the law is clearly to build more housing and somehow they | decided that this intent excludes one of the main residential | dwelling in the USA. Seems like a conspiracy to me. | > As originally enacted, the statutory definition provided | that "housing development project" meant "a use consisting of | either of the following: [P] (A) Residential units only. | ... > This matters because unless we know the full | meaning of "housing development project," it is difficult to | evaluate the parties' central dispute: whether the plural | term "residential units" includes the singular "residential | unit." | | This is just bonkers. | tims33 wrote: | -deleted- | mips_avatar wrote: | I think you misread the judgement. They denied the permit to | build the house, and the courts upheld the denial. | _vertigo wrote: | Am I missing something? There linked pdf is a decision | upholding Marin County's rejection ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-09-08 23:00 UTC)