5 ms·

My guess is that that would be a tougher law to pass. The real estate developers and construction trade unions would pretty much swear to block something that

My guess is that that would be a tougher law to pass. The real estate developers and construction trade unions would pretty much swear to block something that extreme. It could also wreak havoc with small-time landlords who want to improve their properties, so that's another interest group that would militantly oppose it.

pjlegato 10y ago
This has already happened in SF. You need a permit to install a new garage door on your house, including a review of how well it fits the neighborhood character (in the subjective opinion of the reviewer). Yes, the real estate developers and construction unions have screamed, for decades. It passed anyway.
- protomyth 10y ago
  "You need a permit to install a new garage door on your house" I can only imagine what would happen to a politician who would suggest this much less a group of politicians that would pass this in North Dakota. Why are they in office and who is supporting this type of legislation?
  - spamizbad 10y ago
    They are put in office by property owners that are big fans of these laws.
    - sbov 10y ago
      That seems questionable. I haven't met a property owner that is a fan of permits.
      - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
        Harder to build -> harder to densify -> homeowners reap appreciation. If you don't need work done, this is a great way to sit back and let your property values skyrocket (as long as you can pay property taxes, but I hear that's kinda sorta not a problem in California).
        sbov 10y ago
        What percentage of home owners are people who have owned their house for a long time (to benefit from prop 13), need zero work done (unlikely if you've owned your house for a long time), and whose behavior can be reduced to a financial equation?
        rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
        Hell if I know. Look it up and post it here if you're that interested. I have things to do.
        secabeen 10y ago
        My guess is that a lot of people do interior work without permits. If you're tearing down an interior wall and re-building a bathroom, there's no evidence of that from outside, so no simple way for the city to stop you.
        pjlegato 10y ago
        There is tons of this in SF, notably the huge number of illegally built "in-law apartments," where someone converts their garage or basement into a seperate dwelling unit without permits.
        nradov 10y ago
        Existing homeowners don't usually oppose new development in order to maximize their property values. They are usually more motivated by quality of life issues. Some people specifically chose to live in low-density suburbs in order to have a little space, privacy, and quiet. It's hard to convince them to put up with more noise and traffic congestion just so that newcomers can have cheaper housing.
  - pjlegato 10y ago
    In the 1960s and early 1970s, the San Francisco city government was run by pro-development Republicans who built some admittedly rather monstrous looking concrete slab modernist skyscrapers downtown. (Contrary to popular belief, it was then a rather conservative city, not some sort of mythical artsy bohemian paradise. The "freaks," as they were then known, were a small minority of the population.) This led to an anti-development backlash against the so called "Manhattanization" of San Francscio, which synergized with general anti-capitalist sentiment brought by the large number of leftist newcomers who arrived in the 1970s. The pro-development Republicans were routed entirely out of city politics by 1980, and rent control as well as a number of highly restrictive zoning laws were passed, aimed at preserving the picturesque postcard hillsides and views of the bay and halting all forms of physical and social change in the city. The result is that most of the city has a "frozen in amber" feel to it. Making any substantial changes to the way anything physically looked circa 1950 is simply forbidden. If you have to do repairs, you must demonstrate how it will not alter the appearance of the building. You must preserve the facade identically to the way it has been. You can often see gut renovations where the original facade is propped up on wooden stilts facing the street, and the entire rest of the house has been torn down to be rebuilt. A current case in the local news revolves around the city granting landmark status to a 60 year old pine tree (not even a rare species) in some guy's backyard, so that he is legally unable to remove it: http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-san-francisco-norfolk-pine-20160505-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-san-francisco-...
    - protomyth 10y ago
      How exactly do they handle storm damage? A 60 year old pine tree is a danger to multiple houses (depending on density). Better hope it stays healthy.
      - pjlegato 10y ago
        Landmark status for a tree is rather unusual even in San Francisco. I don't know what would happen if this specific tree were damaged by a storm. My guess is they'd allow its removal and require that it be replaced by another one, but who knows.

pjlegato 10y ago

This has already happened in SF. You need a permit to install a new garage door on your house, including a review of how well it fits the neighborhood character (in the subjective opinion of the reviewer). Yes, the real estate developers and construction unions have screamed, for decades. It passed anyway.

protomyth 10y ago
"You need a permit to install a new garage door on your house" I can only imagine what would happen to a politician who would suggest this much less a group of politicians that would pass this in North Dakota. Why are they in office and who is supporting this type of legislation?
- spamizbad 10y ago
  They are put in office by property owners that are big fans of these laws.
  - sbov 10y ago
    That seems questionable. I haven't met a property owner that is a fan of permits.
    - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
      Harder to build -> harder to densify -> homeowners reap appreciation. If you don't need work done, this is a great way to sit back and let your property values skyrocket (as long as you can pay property taxes, but I hear that's kinda sorta not a problem in California).
      - sbov 10y ago
        What percentage of home owners are people who have owned their house for a long time (to benefit from prop 13), need zero work done (unlikely if you've owned your house for a long time), and whose behavior can be reduced to a financial equation?
        rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
        Hell if I know. Look it up and post it here if you're that interested. I have things to do.
        secabeen 10y ago
        My guess is that a lot of people do interior work without permits. If you're tearing down an interior wall and re-building a bathroom, there's no evidence of that from outside, so no simple way for the city to stop you.
        pjlegato 10y ago
        There is tons of this in SF, notably the huge number of illegally built "in-law apartments," where someone converts their garage or basement into a seperate dwelling unit without permits.
      - nradov 10y ago
        Existing homeowners don't usually oppose new development in order to maximize their property values. They are usually more motivated by quality of life issues. Some people specifically chose to live in low-density suburbs in order to have a little space, privacy, and quiet. It's hard to convince them to put up with more noise and traffic congestion just so that newcomers can have cheaper housing.
- pjlegato 10y ago
  In the 1960s and early 1970s, the San Francisco city government was run by pro-development Republicans who built some admittedly rather monstrous looking concrete slab modernist skyscrapers downtown. (Contrary to popular belief, it was then a rather conservative city, not some sort of mythical artsy bohemian paradise. The "freaks," as they were then known, were a small minority of the population.) This led to an anti-development backlash against the so called "Manhattanization" of San Francscio, which synergized with general anti-capitalist sentiment brought by the large number of leftist newcomers who arrived in the 1970s. The pro-development Republicans were routed entirely out of city politics by 1980, and rent control as well as a number of highly restrictive zoning laws were passed, aimed at preserving the picturesque postcard hillsides and views of the bay and halting all forms of physical and social change in the city. The result is that most of the city has a "frozen in amber" feel to it. Making any substantial changes to the way anything physically looked circa 1950 is simply forbidden. If you have to do repairs, you must demonstrate how it will not alter the appearance of the building. You must preserve the facade identically to the way it has been. You can often see gut renovations where the original facade is propped up on wooden stilts facing the street, and the entire rest of the house has been torn down to be rebuilt. A current case in the local news revolves around the city granting landmark status to a 60 year old pine tree (not even a rare species) in some guy's backyard, so that he is legally unable to remove it: http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-san-francisco-norfolk-pine-20160505-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-san-francisco-...
  - protomyth 10y ago
    How exactly do they handle storm damage? A 60 year old pine tree is a danger to multiple houses (depending on density). Better hope it stays healthy.
    - pjlegato 10y ago
      Landmark status for a tree is rather unusual even in San Francisco. I don't know what would happen if this specific tree were damaged by a storm. My guess is they'd allow its removal and require that it be replaced by another one, but who knows.