6 ms·

I highly doubt this bill would pass without severe modifications. The problem is that we have two groups in population: One who own houses and other who don't.

by sytelus 10y ago

I highly doubt this bill would pass without severe modifications. The problem is that we have two groups in population: One who own houses and other who don't. First group don't want new houses and dilute value of their property. Politicans very well knows that making this group unhappy will end their careers. The second group is often in minority outside large cities. This is why its very hard to pass laws that would allow build new houses. It's great that SamA is taking interest in this. If enough valley billionaires can pay for lobbing then politicians can finally ignore their majority constituents and do the "right thing" :).

natrius 10y ago
This is exactly what is happening. Those who own homes don't care what the consequences of preventing new housing nearby are. The consequence is income segregation, especially in areas zoned for single family homes. Single family zoning is inherently segregationist—you can only live in those neighborhoods if you can afford the most expensive type of housing. Our homeowner-run local governments feign concern about housing costs while it's literally illegal to build cheaper homes on less land in so many neighborhoods. To repeal segregation laws that are supported by the public, you're going to need a desegregation movement. Here's one: https://www.facebook.com/DesegregateATX/ https://www.facebook.com/DesegregateATX/
imgabe 10y ago
Would it really affect homeowners outside major cities that much? Nobody is going to rush out to the middle of nowhere to build apartment buildings.
TelAviv_1 10y ago
I own a house in Silicon Valley. And I'm all for building more.
rconti 10y ago
I'm a lowly wage slave homeowner, but I support this.
- realkitkat 10y ago
  Ditto. If only we could next rationalize and overhaul our property tax system / prop-13[1] of 1978. Then we might have a fighting chance of [ more ] affordable housing. Maybe instead of paying linear tax based on purchase price, we could implement a reverse logarithmic scale for property tax % based on state / national / something average sales prices / sqft that would be re-assessed yearly. And then either apply that to all new home purchases, and when enacted, allow existing home owners to opt-in ( recent buyers ), or opt-out. [1] http://www.californiataxdata.com/pdf/Prop13.pdf http://www.californiataxdata.com/pdf/Prop13.pdf
davmre 10y ago
You've described why it's almost impossible to do anything about housing policy at the local level. That's why state-level action such as this bill is so important. The state legislature represents a much broader constituency, including lots of people who would like to live in SF but can't currently afford to.
jvm 10y ago
> First group don't want new houses and dilute value of their property Increasing as-of-right development opportunities can potentially actually increase land values. Definitely bad for condo owners though.
- sampo 10y ago
  > Definitely bad for condo owners though. Why? I would assume, as the area gets denser, more popular, more shops, more restaurants, that also condos go up in price?
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  It increases land values, but more new development decreases the value of older improvements on land.
MicroBerto 10y ago
This is a big argument going on in Austin too. Housing prices are going through the roof, yet home owners don't want multi family units in their neighborhood. I can't say I blame them, either. It's nice having some quiet - four families in the lot next door means 4x more noise, cars, dogs, parties, etc. Difference here is that you can live insanely cheap in the suburbs, so most end up doing that, but with no reasonable public transport and no current ridesharing, it's a mess that will continue to grow.
- natrius 10y ago
  "Just move to the suburbs" is a solution that sounds fine, but it's really not. Wealthier folks feel entitled to central living because a market economy distributes scarce goods to the wealthiest. But the middle class is perfectly capable of outbidding the rich for housing: they do it by buying cheaper homes on less land. Four middle class families in a fourplex spend more on housing than most Central Austin families, but those are illegal to build. Every single family homeowner got a leg up in the housing market because it was illegal for the middle class to bid against them. Our affordability crisis is a charade. It was manufactured by selfish people looking out for their own interests without caring about the consequences. They have segregated our cities by income, and pushed people away from jobs and communities that would've improved their lives. Our cities must be desegregated. This injustice must end.
birken 10y ago
Around 65% of the population in SF are renters. If it were simply homeowners vs renters, renters would win in a landslide. Who do you think was pushing for proposition I (an 18 month development moratorium in the mission) to pass? It wasn't homeowners, that's for sure. It was renters living in the Mission who were (not incorrectly) terrified that new development means they will get evicted and displaced. Why did 60% of SF voters (keeping in mind only 30% are homeowners) vote for Proposition B, requiring a city wide up-or-down vote on all new waterfront development over 40-80 feet? A measure that was also endorsed by multiple major newspapers? Because people are afraid of everything changing too quickly and the nice beautiful waterfront turning into midtown Manhattan. It's complicated. This isn't homeowners giving the middle finger to everybody else. The situation is more akin to existing residents fighting against future residents. Though whatever the situation is, pointing fingers at individual constituencies instead of trying to understand the problem holistically is not helping anything.
- apsec112 10y ago
  "It was renters living in the Mission who were (not incorrectly) terrified that new development means they will get evicted and displaced." New development as the cause of displacement is just outright misinformation. There has been very little development in the Mission: https://rationalconspiracy.com/2015/05/25/new-york-times-makes-up-facts-about-sf-housing/ https://rationalconspiracy.com/2015/05/25/new-york-times-mak... There is an extremely strong negative correlation between development and housing prices across cities: http://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/asking.prices.png http://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/asking.price... This is an excellent writeup by Jason Furman, chief economic adviser to President Obama, which explains in detail how land use restrictions make cities expensive (and cause other problems besides): https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20151120_barriers_shared_growth_land_use_regulation_and_economic_rents.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20...
  - justincormack 10y ago
    People presumably think it is. As a visitor there now a lot of SF looks quite low density low rise, but a lot of the buildings are very pretty and the low rise wooden houses are part of the charm. Not sure how much less dense than Tokyo it is but maybe 4x? As a Brit I love the history, but there are probably parts that could be rebuilt. But there is a high risk that they won't be built as high density, the fact that the proposal includes affordable is because the builders will infill high end mostly. You need to allow rebuild of low density at eg 10x at scale to get a fall in prices. Builders don't want that.
outericky 10y ago
There is a third group - landlords. Those are the ones that have the means to scoop up multiple properties and collect the rents. I believe this to be the main problem in the build more housing plan...

by sytelus 10y ago

natrius 10y ago

This is exactly what is happening. Those who own homes don't care what the consequences of preventing new housing nearby are. The consequence is income segregation, especially in areas zoned for single family homes. Single family zoning is inherently segregationist—you can only live in those neighborhoods if you can afford the most expensive type of housing. Our homeowner-run local governments feign concern about housing costs while it's literally illegal to build cheaper homes on less land in so many neighborhoods. To repeal segregation laws that are supported by the public, you're going to need a desegregation movement. Here's one: https://www.facebook.com/DesegregateATX/ https://www.facebook.com/DesegregateATX/

imgabe 10y ago

Would it really affect homeowners outside major cities that much? Nobody is going to rush out to the middle of nowhere to build apartment buildings.

TelAviv_1 10y ago

I own a house in Silicon Valley. And I'm all for building more.

rconti 10y ago

I'm a lowly wage slave homeowner, but I support this.

realkitkat 10y ago
Ditto. If only we could next rationalize and overhaul our property tax system / prop-13[1] of 1978. Then we might have a fighting chance of [ more ] affordable housing. Maybe instead of paying linear tax based on purchase price, we could implement a reverse logarithmic scale for property tax % based on state / national / something average sales prices / sqft that would be re-assessed yearly. And then either apply that to all new home purchases, and when enacted, allow existing home owners to opt-in ( recent buyers ), or opt-out. [1] http://www.californiataxdata.com/pdf/Prop13.pdf http://www.californiataxdata.com/pdf/Prop13.pdf

davmre 10y ago

You've described why it's almost impossible to do anything about housing policy at the local level. That's why state-level action such as this bill is so important. The state legislature represents a much broader constituency, including lots of people who would like to live in SF but can't currently afford to.

jvm 10y ago

> First group don't want new houses and dilute value of their property Increasing as-of-right development opportunities can potentially actually increase land values. Definitely bad for condo owners though.

sampo 10y ago
> Definitely bad for condo owners though. Why? I would assume, as the area gets denser, more popular, more shops, more restaurants, that also condos go up in price?
dragonwriter 10y ago
It increases land values, but more new development decreases the value of older improvements on land.

MicroBerto 10y ago

This is a big argument going on in Austin too. Housing prices are going through the roof, yet home owners don't want multi family units in their neighborhood. I can't say I blame them, either. It's nice having some quiet - four families in the lot next door means 4x more noise, cars, dogs, parties, etc. Difference here is that you can live insanely cheap in the suburbs, so most end up doing that, but with no reasonable public transport and no current ridesharing, it's a mess that will continue to grow.

natrius 10y ago
"Just move to the suburbs" is a solution that sounds fine, but it's really not. Wealthier folks feel entitled to central living because a market economy distributes scarce goods to the wealthiest. But the middle class is perfectly capable of outbidding the rich for housing: they do it by buying cheaper homes on less land. Four middle class families in a fourplex spend more on housing than most Central Austin families, but those are illegal to build. Every single family homeowner got a leg up in the housing market because it was illegal for the middle class to bid against them. Our affordability crisis is a charade. It was manufactured by selfish people looking out for their own interests without caring about the consequences. They have segregated our cities by income, and pushed people away from jobs and communities that would've improved their lives. Our cities must be desegregated. This injustice must end.

birken 10y ago

Around 65% of the population in SF are renters. If it were simply homeowners vs renters, renters would win in a landslide. Who do you think was pushing for proposition I (an 18 month development moratorium in the mission) to pass? It wasn't homeowners, that's for sure. It was renters living in the Mission who were (not incorrectly) terrified that new development means they will get evicted and displaced. Why did 60% of SF voters (keeping in mind only 30% are homeowners) vote for Proposition B, requiring a city wide up-or-down vote on all new waterfront development over 40-80 feet? A measure that was also endorsed by multiple major newspapers? Because people are afraid of everything changing too quickly and the nice beautiful waterfront turning into midtown Manhattan. It's complicated. This isn't homeowners giving the middle finger to everybody else. The situation is more akin to existing residents fighting against future residents. Though whatever the situation is, pointing fingers at individual constituencies instead of trying to understand the problem holistically is not helping anything.

apsec112 10y ago
"It was renters living in the Mission who were (not incorrectly) terrified that new development means they will get evicted and displaced." New development as the cause of displacement is just outright misinformation. There has been very little development in the Mission: https://rationalconspiracy.com/2015/05/25/new-york-times-makes-up-facts-about-sf-housing/ https://rationalconspiracy.com/2015/05/25/new-york-times-mak... There is an extremely strong negative correlation between development and housing prices across cities: http://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/asking.prices.png http://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/asking.price... This is an excellent writeup by Jason Furman, chief economic adviser to President Obama, which explains in detail how land use restrictions make cities expensive (and cause other problems besides): https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20151120_barriers_shared_growth_land_use_regulation_and_economic_rents.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20...
- justincormack 10y ago
  People presumably think it is. As a visitor there now a lot of SF looks quite low density low rise, but a lot of the buildings are very pretty and the low rise wooden houses are part of the charm. Not sure how much less dense than Tokyo it is but maybe 4x? As a Brit I love the history, but there are probably parts that could be rebuilt. But there is a high risk that they won't be built as high density, the fact that the proposal includes affordable is because the builders will infill high end mostly. You need to allow rebuild of low density at eg 10x at scale to get a fall in prices. Builders don't want that.

outericky 10y ago

There is a third group - landlords. Those are the ones that have the means to scoop up multiple properties and collect the rents. I believe this to be the main problem in the build more housing plan...