Comment by millimeterman | Hacker News Reader

Comment by millimeterman | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Santa Cruz since the 70's has been a very environmentally conscious no-growth city

Dense construction with high-quality public transport is a significantly more environmentally-friendly city design than a sea of single-family homes with mandatory car ownership. The latter may be more superficially "natural" - green swaths of suburbia vs. concrete jungles - but it really is only superficial.

> San Jose style growth

San Jose, like the entire Bay Area, is crippled by the exact same rampant NIMBYism and suburban sprawl as Santa Cruz. Not only would a densely constructed San Jose be more environmentally friendly, its economic growth would be _significantly_ higher.

Underneath all the posturing about the environment and "the feel of the community", the only thing NIMBYism protects is high property values and rents.

EDIT:

> natives who resent 5 story huge San Jose style apartment blocks going up in their beautiful city

I'm sorry, _what_? In what universe is a 5 story apartment building huge or unreasonable in one of the most desirable areas to live in the country?

Most people who live (and vote) in Santa Cruz prefer to be in a low density area. While I understand that some people actually like to live in denser cities, the majority prefer some space and privacy. This is not unreasonable.

Places like Santa Cruz have never had any real intentional urban planning, so building a lot of additional housing is going to overload the infrastructure. They would need to upgrade all the utilities, build more schools, and completely revamp the transportation system. Good luck convincing any long-term Santa Cruz residents that they should sacrifice their quality of life and live in the middle of a construction zone for years for the sake of reducing someone else's rent.

For students at UCSC, housing is somewhat cheaper and more available about 20 miles away in the Watsonville area. There are public bus routes. Of course, Watsonville isn't as fashionable. You can't walk to the beach and go surfing before class.

> Most people who live (and vote) in Santa Cruz prefer to be in a low density area. While I understand that some people actually like to live in denser cities, the majority prefer some space and privacy.

Sure, there's nothing wrong with that. What _is_ unreasonable is fighting tooth and nail to prevent anyone without a sufficiently large bag of money from moving to Santa Cruz to try and preserve that low density.

> Places like Santa Cruz have never had any real intentional urban planning, so building a lot of additional housing is going to overload the infrastructure. They would need to upgrade all the utilities, build more schools, and completely revamp the transportation system.

I don't see how this is a valid argument against densification. It's not as if the current infrastructure in Santa Cruz was just lying around when people got there. Every growing population center has had to deal with expanding infrastructure to match. This isn't some novel, unsolvable problem.

> Good luck convincing any long-term Santa Cruz residents that they should sacrifice their quality of life and live in the middle of a construction zone for years for the sake of reducing someone else's rent.

Why should they get to decide? Why are their preferences so much more important than those of poorer or newer residents?

>What _is_ unreasonable is fighting tooth and nail to prevent anyone without a sufficiently large bag of money from moving to Santa Cruz to try and preserve that low density.

Why? Why shouldn't locals be allowed to set development restrictions to their liking? Even if their desire is to intentionally stop population growth.

Because there are major societal losses incurred by preventing development. I see no reason why governments should enable locals to enjoy the benefits of high property values and low density while externalizing the costs of that behavior onto others.

I suspect you don't understand the difference between Santa Cruz and San Jose. Have you been to Santa Cruz?

"You don't understand why we're unique and special and therefore need special housing rules that just so happen to be identical to the ones in every other town" is also a bog-standard NIMBY argument. You're really ticking every single checkbox here.

Ok, I'm NIMBY. So? I'm sure you would too if they were to build a 5 story apartment building overlooking your backyard. My point is that Santa Cruz and San Jose are very different. Santa Cruz is a spot of natural beauty worth preserving. There really aren't many beach towns like it on the coast. The closest one to the North is probably Pacifica 50 miles north. Santa Cruz doesn't have much more land available while San Jose has a lot of land. Also it makes sense to build up in San Jose, which it's doing. San Jose has a lot of room for growth, Santa Cruz does not. San Jose is a like many other California cities, Santa Cruz is unique, which is why massive amounts of tourists come from the Central Valley and Santa Clara Valley to enjoy a day at the beach at the Santa Cruz Boardwalk.

Didn't get a big nimby vibe from your first post, just sounded like you were explaining the local situation.

But now you've mentioned it, nimby is the reason your nieces and nephs won't be able to live there. The richest folks always win when there is a refusal to build.

I'm not even sure what NIMBY means but if it means concerned about the development in my hometown then I'm NIMBY.

"Not in my backyard" ensures scarcity, in cahoots with Econ 101 whilst denying it.

^Insert quote about salary preventing understanding. In this case home equity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com