4 ms·

How does Seattle get such a generally reasonable city government (and even better in the surrounding cities) compared to San Francisco (and the neighboring citi

by rdl 11y ago

How does Seattle get such a generally reasonable city government (and even better in the surrounding cities) compared to San Francisco (and the neighboring cities, too). As far as I can tell both places are roughly the same in demographics, education, and only recently has SF surged ahead in wealth (and SF used to be even worse than it is now.)

jseliger 11y ago
The short answer is voters. The longer answer is complicated. 1. Some urban planning decisions are made at the state, not local, level, which means that more housing gets built and prices are lower: http://www.vox.com/2016/4/6/11370258/honan-zoning-reform-bill http://www.vox.com/2016/4/6/11370258/honan-zoning-reform-bil.... 2. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is insane. For example, it allows anyone to sue anyone building anything on environmental grounds. 3. CA has Prop 13, which is also insane, and Prop U in LA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_U https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_U which is insane. Prop U encourages some people at the margins to pick SF over LA. 4. SF has rent control, which means that many voters are encouraged to say no to everything. 5. The cities' histories are different: http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing. SF has a longer history of radical, economically illiterate politics than Seattle. 6. Seattle's city government is not quite as reasonable as it looks. Google "The Seattle Process" or Kshama Sawant. It only looks better than SF because SF has uniquely terrible voters.
- rdl 11y ago
  Which eastside city is the most sane? Bellevue? Issaquah? Redmond?
- teacup50 11y ago
  You can't really make the comparison being made in #1 without a lot of assumptions that just don't actually hold water in the market. Seattle has a population of 652k, with an average density of 8k/sq mi. San Francisco has a population of 864k, with an average density of 18.5k/sq mi. And yet: Seattle has a jobs-to-housing ratio of 1.5 SF has a jobs-to-housing ratio of 1.6 So what explains SF's higher costs? Density coupled with massive wealth inequality. Period. Upzoning increases land value in a tight market. Markets remain tight in desirable locations and no amount of development has been able to keep up; population is growing, job growth in the tech sector is high, and the wealth gap coupled with high demand means that there's enormous price elasticity for some, who then push the rest out. High density construction carries a higher barrier to entry, and is almost exclusively allocated to rental units. Additionally, high density construction allows one to combine multiple profitable uses in the same plot; commercial and residential. This accelerates the wealth divide, putting more money into the hands of fewer and fewer land owners, with rents tracking whatever the high demand is capable of sustaining. Nobody else ever builds up equity, the city winds up being owned by fewer and fewer, and the low end of the market is priced out. This then requires attempts at government correction, through subsidized housing; either as outright grants to developers, zoning variances granted to allow higher margins in exchange for permanently affordable (but still rental!) units, tax credits, etc. This further accelerates the growth of the wealth divide, as development and development investment companies begin to specialize in cornering access to (and brokerage of) these economic perks that are unavailable to individual potential home owners. Density does not fix housing. It literally never has, and I do not even begin to understand how this conception became the norm amongst housing activists. As near as I call tell, it's something that's been green/liberal-washed as a necessity by those who profit the most from the government-funded development incentives.
tdicola 11y ago
Ehh, Seattle and Washington's government isn't any better than other cities and states. You just don't hear about the junk going on unless you live in the state. Our state funding for education is a complete joke and the state congress refuses to give funding that was mandated by the state supreme court (http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/education/supreme-court-orders-100000-per-day-fines-in-mccleary-case/ http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/education/supreme-c...). The right side of the state (towards Idaho) is much, much different than the Seattle area and is always at odds with what Seattle wants. For every awesome transit project there are many other quagmires like our Bertha big dig that's been spinning its wheels and wasting money for years now.
hinkley 11y ago
Seattle was founded by lumber barons selling building materials to San Francisco. You guys kept lighting your town on fire, we kept sending wood and you sent back dirt and rocks which we used to fill in the mud. We even stole your gold rush idea. Thanks for that. Great idea. Basically we've been sucking you guys dry for 150 years :p

by rdl 11y ago

jseliger 11y ago

The short answer is voters. The longer answer is complicated. 1. Some urban planning decisions are made at the state, not local, level, which means that more housing gets built and prices are lower: http://www.vox.com/2016/4/6/11370258/honan-zoning-reform-bill http://www.vox.com/2016/4/6/11370258/honan-zoning-reform-bil.... 2. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is insane. For example, it allows anyone to sue anyone building anything on environmental grounds. 3. CA has Prop 13, which is also insane, and Prop U in LA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_U https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_U which is insane. Prop U encourages some people at the margins to pick SF over LA. 4. SF has rent control, which means that many voters are encouraged to say no to everything. 5. The cities' histories are different: http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing. SF has a longer history of radical, economically illiterate politics than Seattle. 6. Seattle's city government is not quite as reasonable as it looks. Google "The Seattle Process" or Kshama Sawant. It only looks better than SF because SF has uniquely terrible voters.

rdl 11y ago
Which eastside city is the most sane? Bellevue? Issaquah? Redmond?
teacup50 11y ago
You can't really make the comparison being made in #1 without a lot of assumptions that just don't actually hold water in the market. Seattle has a population of 652k, with an average density of 8k/sq mi. San Francisco has a population of 864k, with an average density of 18.5k/sq mi. And yet: Seattle has a jobs-to-housing ratio of 1.5 SF has a jobs-to-housing ratio of 1.6 So what explains SF's higher costs? Density coupled with massive wealth inequality. Period. Upzoning increases land value in a tight market. Markets remain tight in desirable locations and no amount of development has been able to keep up; population is growing, job growth in the tech sector is high, and the wealth gap coupled with high demand means that there's enormous price elasticity for some, who then push the rest out. High density construction carries a higher barrier to entry, and is almost exclusively allocated to rental units. Additionally, high density construction allows one to combine multiple profitable uses in the same plot; commercial and residential. This accelerates the wealth divide, putting more money into the hands of fewer and fewer land owners, with rents tracking whatever the high demand is capable of sustaining. Nobody else ever builds up equity, the city winds up being owned by fewer and fewer, and the low end of the market is priced out. This then requires attempts at government correction, through subsidized housing; either as outright grants to developers, zoning variances granted to allow higher margins in exchange for permanently affordable (but still rental!) units, tax credits, etc. This further accelerates the growth of the wealth divide, as development and development investment companies begin to specialize in cornering access to (and brokerage of) these economic perks that are unavailable to individual potential home owners. Density does not fix housing. It literally never has, and I do not even begin to understand how this conception became the norm amongst housing activists. As near as I call tell, it's something that's been green/liberal-washed as a necessity by those who profit the most from the government-funded development incentives.

tdicola 11y ago

Ehh, Seattle and Washington's government isn't any better than other cities and states. You just don't hear about the junk going on unless you live in the state. Our state funding for education is a complete joke and the state congress refuses to give funding that was mandated by the state supreme court (http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/education/supreme-court-orders-100000-per-day-fines-in-mccleary-case/ http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/education/supreme-c...). The right side of the state (towards Idaho) is much, much different than the Seattle area and is always at odds with what Seattle wants. For every awesome transit project there are many other quagmires like our Bertha big dig that's been spinning its wheels and wasting money for years now.

hinkley 11y ago

Seattle was founded by lumber barons selling building materials to San Francisco. You guys kept lighting your town on fire, we kept sending wood and you sent back dirt and rocks which we used to fill in the mud. We even stole your gold rush idea. Thanks for that. Great idea. Basically we've been sucking you guys dry for 150 years :p