6 ms·

To tackle highest housing costs, hawaii's gov declares YIMBY martial law

35 points by resalisbury 3y ago

dixie_land 3y ago
I wonder if this will backfire and make it a land grab for developers to build new luxury vacation homes/resorts for the express purpose of Airbnb them out
brutusborn 3y ago
Is it just me or is it crazy that it takes a massive disaster for something like this to happen? Maybe the disaster makes it politically acceptable now.
- FreshStart 3y ago
  Shock therapy capitalism was always acceptable for non empire people.
- candiodari 3y ago
  It's because in a 10 years someone is going to notice that "somehow" the current governor of Hawaii became a billionaire, along with 10 project developers. Probably this will happen when one of the buildings collapses taking 100 children directly to ~2 meters below the surface ...
umeshunni 3y ago
Is this similar to the 'Builders Remedy' law in CA cities? In California, if a city does not plan for the number of homes required by the state, the city has to approve any housing project as long as at least 20% of the homes are low-income or 100% of them are moderate-income.
- sidewndr46 3y ago
  This gets repeated all the time, but from what I can tell is just a power fantasy. There are no California cities actually rubber stamping all housing, despite numerous cities being very far from compliance.
  - PopAlongKid 3y ago
    The builder's remedy circumvents the need for a city to approve or "rubber stamp" anything. It does seem just at the cusp of finally being a meaningful provision, see this recent legal development involving the first court ruling on the law after an out of compliance city nevertheless denied a developer. California Court Issues First Decision Addressing Builder’s Remedy; Decision on Related Lawsuit Pending https://www.fbm.com/publications/california-court-issues-first-decision-addressing-builders-remedy-decision-on-related-lawsuit-pending/ https://www.fbm.com/publications/california-court-issues-fir...
getwiththeprog 3y ago
I don't think this would work in Melbourne, where I'm from. The land is so high priced, and developers can build anyway. We need caps on normal family houses, single and double living apartments and more land released with the services such as public transport to back it up.
- lostlogin 3y ago
  Same with Auckland, but we need higher intensity, not more land. Public transport that’s useful seems very unlikely here. We tried looser regulations and got a massive fiasco of leaky buildings due to poor design, poor material choice, poor workmanship, poor auditing and inappropriate sign off. It’ll be interesting to see how all goes for Hawaii.
  - techdragon 3y ago
    The effectiveness of public transport is significantly affected by the population density. Without sufficient people per unit area, you won’t have enough passengers to make the public transport work, depending on all the obvious factors like cost/quality of the public transport, proximity to housing without parking, the existence of housing without parking, etc. I would view the existence of housing that doesn’t come with parking to be a forcing function, it on average only gets built where public transportation is viable, and once built it ensures ongoing continued demand for that transportation which keeps public transport more viable around that location. Not a lot of housing development (even removing suburban homes where driving is basically a necessity) in Australia or New Zealand gets built without at least one parking space per dwelling be it a town house an unit or even a studio apartment… it does happen but it’s kind of rare. In large part due to the conflict between inner city real estate where public transport density is high enough to make car free living practical for normal people, is sufficiently expensive that the market selects for people who are rich and thus you’ll see apartments built where the entire first few floors are a multi story carpark squashed in under the actual living space because no one that can afford the apartments would even consider not having room to park their luxury car. It’s sort of a vicious cycle, the cost also helps drive realestate speculation and the ongoing rise in prices and the continued cyclical rise in real estate prices year on year.
xg15 3y ago
Judging from the articles that get posted on here, in the US you only seem to have a choice between completely bonkers regulations that only serve entrenched interests or no regulation at all. How about regulation that is actually sensible?
- nottorp 3y ago
  That's what I was thinking of. If you turn off all regulation you'll end with 20 story apartment buildings with zero parking space, zero greenery and accessible only by a tiny narrow road that's always clogged.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - rhaway84773 3y ago
    Why do you think people will build houses with no street space? Anyways it’s not like street space will suddenly be turned over from the govt to private builders, but even if it was private land why wouldn’t they build land with enough space in it? Zero parking space would be a good thing because it would indicate public transport is good enough that people don’t need their own private cars for most trips. But in practice if that’s not the case a builder is gonna be unable to sell an apartment without parking space, so they aren’t gonna build apartments like those. And what’s wrong with 20 storey apartment buildings? And why does that preclude greenery?
    - nottorp 3y ago
      Everything you mentioned cuts into their profit so it's not worth doing without any regulations.
    - hotsauceror 3y ago
      Why would a private developer's decision not to include parking, be interpreted as some kind of metric for the sufficiency of public transport in the area? If a builder chose not to install locks on the doors of a new apartment complex, would that be "a good thing because it would indicate public safety is good enough that people don't need their own private locks for most areas?" There is no incentive for them to consider these externalities at all. There is, however, an incentive to use that same space for something they can profit from - namely, additional apartments.
more_corn 3y ago
One thing they can do to make it easier is publish approved adu plans.
bahro 3y ago
> environmental groups have already denounced the proclamation's potential to allow for high-rises in residential neighborhoods That's not an "environmental group." They may call themselves that, but there's no need for journalists to credulously repeat it. There is no "environmental" argument for preventing new residential buildings, even tall ones, from being built in existing urban residential neighborhoods. To protect the environment this is even necessary. I hope there are some real environmental orgs in Hawaii fighting back against greenfield development by supporting urban infill.
- Simulacra 3y ago
  Environmental Impact Studies have been used to halt a wide number of projects that could be hugely beneficial to society, from green energy and nuclear, to multi-unit dwellings and mass transit. There is an entire industry of attorneys who specializes in suing to stop projects like this, and in some cases, if they win they an get their fees paid for by the state under "environmental justice" laws. In short, using environmental protection to halt projects is mostly a NIMBY farce.
- rayiner 3y ago
  Environmentalism is a big coalition, not just one focused on climate change. There’s a lot of people who oppose “the concrete jungle.” Most existing environmental laws, dating to the 1970s, are geared to them, not the more recent (or recently understood) problem of climate change.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
say_it_as_it_is 3y ago
To tackle highest housing costs, developers are going to build luxury high rise units afforded by banks lending at the highest rates in 50 years. A sliver of affordable units will be extended to politically aligned friends and family, and of course the 50% of the workforce employed by the government. There should be legislation associated with this decree that pins market prices where they ought to be in order to address affordability concerns. This would keep everyone accountable.

35 points by resalisbury 3y ago

I wonder if this will backfire and make it a land grab for developers to build new luxury vacation homes/resorts for the express purpose of Airbnb them out

brutusborn 3y ago

Is it just me or is it crazy that it takes a massive disaster for something like this to happen? Maybe the disaster makes it politically acceptable now.

FreshStart 3y ago
Shock therapy capitalism was always acceptable for non empire people.
candiodari 3y ago
It's because in a 10 years someone is going to notice that "somehow" the current governor of Hawaii became a billionaire, along with 10 project developers. Probably this will happen when one of the buildings collapses taking 100 children directly to ~2 meters below the surface ...

umeshunni 3y ago

Is this similar to the 'Builders Remedy' law in CA cities? In California, if a city does not plan for the number of homes required by the state, the city has to approve any housing project as long as at least 20% of the homes are low-income or 100% of them are moderate-income.

sidewndr46 3y ago
This gets repeated all the time, but from what I can tell is just a power fantasy. There are no California cities actually rubber stamping all housing, despite numerous cities being very far from compliance.
- PopAlongKid 3y ago
  The builder's remedy circumvents the need for a city to approve or "rubber stamp" anything. It does seem just at the cusp of finally being a meaningful provision, see this recent legal development involving the first court ruling on the law after an out of compliance city nevertheless denied a developer. California Court Issues First Decision Addressing Builder’s Remedy; Decision on Related Lawsuit Pending https://www.fbm.com/publications/california-court-issues-first-decision-addressing-builders-remedy-decision-on-related-lawsuit-pending/ https://www.fbm.com/publications/california-court-issues-fir...

getwiththeprog 3y ago

I don't think this would work in Melbourne, where I'm from. The land is so high priced, and developers can build anyway. We need caps on normal family houses, single and double living apartments and more land released with the services such as public transport to back it up.

lostlogin 3y ago
Same with Auckland, but we need higher intensity, not more land. Public transport that’s useful seems very unlikely here. We tried looser regulations and got a massive fiasco of leaky buildings due to poor design, poor material choice, poor workmanship, poor auditing and inappropriate sign off. It’ll be interesting to see how all goes for Hawaii.
- techdragon 3y ago
  The effectiveness of public transport is significantly affected by the population density. Without sufficient people per unit area, you won’t have enough passengers to make the public transport work, depending on all the obvious factors like cost/quality of the public transport, proximity to housing without parking, the existence of housing without parking, etc. I would view the existence of housing that doesn’t come with parking to be a forcing function, it on average only gets built where public transportation is viable, and once built it ensures ongoing continued demand for that transportation which keeps public transport more viable around that location. Not a lot of housing development (even removing suburban homes where driving is basically a necessity) in Australia or New Zealand gets built without at least one parking space per dwelling be it a town house an unit or even a studio apartment… it does happen but it’s kind of rare. In large part due to the conflict between inner city real estate where public transport density is high enough to make car free living practical for normal people, is sufficiently expensive that the market selects for people who are rich and thus you’ll see apartments built where the entire first few floors are a multi story carpark squashed in under the actual living space because no one that can afford the apartments would even consider not having room to park their luxury car. It’s sort of a vicious cycle, the cost also helps drive realestate speculation and the ongoing rise in prices and the continued cyclical rise in real estate prices year on year.

xg15 3y ago

Judging from the articles that get posted on here, in the US you only seem to have a choice between completely bonkers regulations that only serve entrenched interests or no regulation at all. How about regulation that is actually sensible?

nottorp 3y ago
That's what I was thinking of. If you turn off all regulation you'll end with 20 story apartment buildings with zero parking space, zero greenery and accessible only by a tiny narrow road that's always clogged.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- rhaway84773 3y ago
  Why do you think people will build houses with no street space? Anyways it’s not like street space will suddenly be turned over from the govt to private builders, but even if it was private land why wouldn’t they build land with enough space in it? Zero parking space would be a good thing because it would indicate public transport is good enough that people don’t need their own private cars for most trips. But in practice if that’s not the case a builder is gonna be unable to sell an apartment without parking space, so they aren’t gonna build apartments like those. And what’s wrong with 20 storey apartment buildings? And why does that preclude greenery?
  - nottorp 3y ago
    Everything you mentioned cuts into their profit so it's not worth doing without any regulations.
  - hotsauceror 3y ago
    Why would a private developer's decision not to include parking, be interpreted as some kind of metric for the sufficiency of public transport in the area? If a builder chose not to install locks on the doors of a new apartment complex, would that be "a good thing because it would indicate public safety is good enough that people don't need their own private locks for most areas?" There is no incentive for them to consider these externalities at all. There is, however, an incentive to use that same space for something they can profit from - namely, additional apartments.

more_corn 3y ago

One thing they can do to make it easier is publish approved adu plans.

bahro 3y ago

> environmental groups have already denounced the proclamation's potential to allow for high-rises in residential neighborhoods That's not an "environmental group." They may call themselves that, but there's no need for journalists to credulously repeat it. There is no "environmental" argument for preventing new residential buildings, even tall ones, from being built in existing urban residential neighborhoods. To protect the environment this is even necessary. I hope there are some real environmental orgs in Hawaii fighting back against greenfield development by supporting urban infill.

Simulacra 3y ago
Environmental Impact Studies have been used to halt a wide number of projects that could be hugely beneficial to society, from green energy and nuclear, to multi-unit dwellings and mass transit. There is an entire industry of attorneys who specializes in suing to stop projects like this, and in some cases, if they win they an get their fees paid for by the state under "environmental justice" laws. In short, using environmental protection to halt projects is mostly a NIMBY farce.
rayiner 3y ago
Environmentalism is a big coalition, not just one focused on climate change. There’s a lot of people who oppose “the concrete jungle.” Most existing environmental laws, dating to the 1970s, are geared to them, not the more recent (or recently understood) problem of climate change.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

say_it_as_it_is 3y ago

To tackle highest housing costs, developers are going to build luxury high rise units afforded by banks lending at the highest rates in 50 years. A sliver of affordable units will be extended to politically aligned friends and family, and of course the 50% of the workforce employed by the government. There should be legislation associated with this decree that pins market prices where they ought to be in order to address affordability concerns. This would keep everyone accountable.