3 ms·

This is absolutely democracy. It's just democracy on the state level, rather than the local level. In this case, the state level is appropriate, because San Fra

This is absolutely democracy. It's just democracy on the state level, rather than the local level. In this case, the state level is appropriate, because San Francisco's policies have an effect on all the surrounding cities, and all the other Americans who might want to live in SF. Would it be "undemocratic" to say that San Francisco can't unilaterally vote to stop paying federal income taxes? In any case, cities will still have huge influence over what gets built, since every building under this law still has to comply with local zoning. All this law says is that cities can't pretend to allow development, and then arbitrarily block individual developers for no reason (or because they didn't pay enough bribes).

studentrob 10y ago
> San Francisco's policies have an effect on all the surrounding cities, and all the other Americans who might want to live in SF. You could make that case for all regions of the world. Nobody is completely isolated. We breath the same air and everyone deals with the effects of pollution. It's not a reason to prevent changing existing law.
- apsec112 10y ago
  It's a difference of degree. The effect of most local policies on the region, nation, or world is negligible. The effect of San Francisco's is very large. See this magazine article on how NIMBYs pushed suburban sprawl on surrounding areas: https://web.archive.org/web/20001001083046/http://www.sfweekly.com/issues/1999-08-18/feature.html/printable_page https://web.archive.org/web/20001001083046/http://www.sfweek... See this article, on how restrictive urban land use is estimated to lower America's entire national GDP by 5-15%: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21647614-poor-land-use-worlds-greatest-cities-carries-huge-cost-space-and-city http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21647614-poor-land-use...
  - studentrob 10y ago
    There are plenty of things that lower GDP. Environmental policies, for one. That's not reason enough alone. I suspect the impact of restrictions on SF growth at this point are large because as the parent notes, growth has been large there in the digital age. Tech businesses have had it good there for awhile. Maybe time for some change, no? At least get rid of Feinstein.. Edit: please explain down votes, thanks!!
  - eru 10y ago
    See also http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/04/land-value-tax http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/04/land-val... and http://qz.com/169767/the-century-old-solution-to-end-san-franciscos-class-warfare/ http://qz.com/169767/the-century-old-solution-to-end-san-fra...

studentrob 10y ago

> San Francisco's policies have an effect on all the surrounding cities, and all the other Americans who might want to live in SF. You could make that case for all regions of the world. Nobody is completely isolated. We breath the same air and everyone deals with the effects of pollution. It's not a reason to prevent changing existing law.

apsec112 10y ago
It's a difference of degree. The effect of most local policies on the region, nation, or world is negligible. The effect of San Francisco's is very large. See this magazine article on how NIMBYs pushed suburban sprawl on surrounding areas: https://web.archive.org/web/20001001083046/http://www.sfweekly.com/issues/1999-08-18/feature.html/printable_page https://web.archive.org/web/20001001083046/http://www.sfweek... See this article, on how restrictive urban land use is estimated to lower America's entire national GDP by 5-15%: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21647614-poor-land-use-worlds-greatest-cities-carries-huge-cost-space-and-city http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21647614-poor-land-use...
- studentrob 10y ago
  There are plenty of things that lower GDP. Environmental policies, for one. That's not reason enough alone. I suspect the impact of restrictions on SF growth at this point are large because as the parent notes, growth has been large there in the digital age. Tech businesses have had it good there for awhile. Maybe time for some change, no? At least get rid of Feinstein.. Edit: please explain down votes, thanks!!
- eru 10y ago
  See also http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/04/land-value-tax http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/04/land-val... and http://qz.com/169767/the-century-old-solution-to-end-san-franciscos-class-warfare/ http://qz.com/169767/the-century-old-solution-to-end-san-fra...