California's new "friend compound" laws, effective January 1, 2024, significantly ease restrictions on building multiple housing units on a single-family lot. Senate Bills 9 and 10 streamline the process for splitting lots and building duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes, respectively, while maintaining local control over design standards. These laws aim to increase housing density and affordability by overcoming outdated zoning regulations, though their effectiveness remains to be seen due to potential loopholes and local implementation challenges. They represent a notable step towards addressing California's housing crisis.
The "Housing Theory of Everything" argues that restrictive housing policies in prosperous cities have cascading negative effects across society. By artificially limiting housing supply through zoning and other regulations, these cities drive up housing costs, exacerbating inequality and hindering economic growth. This impacts everything from family formation and geographic mobility to innovation and political polarization. High housing costs force people to live further from job centers, increasing commute times and contributing to climate change. The theory posits that reforming housing policy to allow for significantly more density would unlock a range of societal benefits, fostering greater dynamism, affordability, and opportunity.
Hacker News users generally agreed with the premise of the linked article, that housing shortages significantly impact various societal issues. Several commenters shared personal anecdotes about the difficulties of finding affordable housing and its cascading effects on their lives. Some discussed the complexities of zoning laws and NIMBYism, highlighting how they perpetuate the housing crisis. Others pointed out the article's US-centric focus and how housing shortages manifest differently in other countries. The discussion also touched upon potential solutions, including increasing density, reforming zoning regulations, and exploring alternative housing models. A few commenters questioned the article's broad claims, arguing that while housing is a critical factor, it doesn't explain "everything." The most compelling comments offered personal experiences illustrating the real-world consequences of the housing crisis and thoughtful critiques of current housing policies.
Summary of Comments ( 88 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43482005
Hacker News users discussed the complexities and potential downsides of California's recently enacted "Friend Compound" ADU law (AB-2221). Several commenters questioned the financial viability, pointing out that the costs associated with building multiple ADUs on a single lot could outweigh the potential rental income, especially with rising interest rates. Others raised concerns about parking, increased density impacting neighborhood character, and the potential for exploitation by developers seeking to maximize profits. The lack of clear guidelines within the law regarding utility connections and other practical considerations was also a recurring theme. Some expressed skepticism about whether the law would meaningfully address the housing crisis, suggesting it might primarily benefit wealthier homeowners. The overall sentiment seemed to be cautious optimism tempered by a healthy dose of pragmatism.
The Hacker News post titled "The long-awaited Friend Compound laws in California" discussing the Supernuclear Substack article about ADU regulations has generated a moderate amount of discussion, with a mix of perspectives on the new laws and their potential impact.
Several commenters express skepticism about the purported benefits of the new ADU laws. One commenter argues that while the laws aim to simplify the process, local jurisdictions still retain significant control, leading to continued complexity and potential roadblocks. They also point out the ongoing issue of high construction costs, which may negate any advantages gained from easier permitting. Another commenter echoes this sentiment, suggesting that the real issue is the high cost of construction, not necessarily the permitting process itself. They believe that until construction costs decrease, ADUs won't become truly widespread.
Another line of discussion revolves around the actual impact of these ADU laws. One commenter questions whether these laws will genuinely produce more "friend compounds" or simply more expensive ADUs. They raise the concern that the focus might be shifting towards larger, more luxurious ADUs rather than smaller, more affordable units intended for friends.
Some commenters offer alternative solutions to the housing crisis. One suggests exploring cooperative housing models and co-living arrangements as potentially more effective approaches. Another proposes the idea of allowing more density in existing neighborhoods by loosening restrictions on building height limits and reducing parking requirements. They believe that this could significantly increase housing availability without relying solely on ADUs.
A few commenters also touch upon the issue of community impact. One commenter expresses worry about the potential strain on existing infrastructure and public services, particularly in areas with limited resources.
Finally, a couple of commenters offer anecdotes about their personal experiences with ADUs, highlighting the challenges and complexities involved, even with the supposedly simplified regulations. One shares a story of struggling with the permitting process despite the new laws, demonstrating that the reality on the ground may differ from the intended outcome of the legislation. Another simply states they are currently living in an ADU, providing a brief personal connection to the topic.
While the discussion isn't exceptionally extensive, it provides a variety of viewpoints on the effectiveness and potential consequences of California's ADU laws, with a recurring theme of skepticism about whether these changes will truly address the underlying housing affordability challenges.