3 ms·

1979, and that rule comes from a state law called Costa-Hawkins which prohibits any California municipality from requiring rent control on any new unit construc

by raldi 10y ago

1979, and that rule comes from a state law called Costa-Hawkins which prohibits any California municipality from requiring rent control on any new unit constructed after then. The intention was to spur construction by offering a carrot to anyone who built a new (and presumably bigger) apartment building. The unforeseen consequence is that now city planning commissions in places like SF simply don't issue demolition permits anymore for pre-1979 apartment buildings.

MichaelBurge 10y ago
> The unforeseen consequence is that now city planning commissions in places like SF simply don't issue demolition permits anymore for pre-1979 apartment buildings. Is that even legal? It's one thing to use zoning for city planning as a general guideline, or to require permits to ensure work is done safely; but people ultimately have rights to their property. Has it been taken to court before? It's borderline a violation of the Takings Clause: "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation."
- flamedoge 10y ago
  State can take from citizen with just compensation via eminent domain, so people really do not have rights to real estate. They have rights to market value of property.
- dexterdog 10y ago
  Of course it's legal. Just ask the guys that write the laws to protect the people who pay for their campaigns.
timr 10y ago
"The unforeseen consequence is that now city planning commissions in places like SF simply don't issue demolition permits anymore for pre-1979 apartment buildings." That isn't true. There's a well-defined process for it -- demolition is one of the few just causes for eviction here, and the planning department only has to take rent control into consideration as one factor when issuing new permits -- and it happens regularly in SF: https://www.sftu.org/merger/ https://www.sftu.org/merger/ http://planning.sanfranciscocode.org/3/317/ http://planning.sanfranciscocode.org/3/317/ Demolition permits are also so routinely issued for rent-controlled buildings in NYC that landlords are using it as a tactic to push out rent-controlled tenants: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/realestate/02cover.html?pagewanted=print http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/realestate/02cover.html?pa...
- sroussey 10y ago
  Trinity demolished buildings by civic center, but were required to move the people there into the new buildings at the same rent controlled rates. So it isn't true in a strict sense, but effectively it's true.
- raldi 10y ago
  It happens very rarely, and when it does, it's a scandal and a total "man bites dog" story: http://48hills.org/2014/09/08/sf-planners-decide-just-fine-demolish-rent-controlled-housing/ http://48hills.org/2014/09/08/sf-planners-decide-just-fine-d... Gabriel Ng & Architechs Inc. wants to build two new structures on the large corner lot at 26th and Clement. Each building would have three units, with three-bedrooms each. The project sponsor argued that there’s a need for family housing in the city, and that six new units, which most likely would be sold as condos, would help the crisis. But to make room for one of the buildings, the project calls for the demolition of an existing apartment building with two smaller rent-controlled units. And that’s something the city isn’t supposed to allow. In fact, when the mayor with great fanfare issued his housing directive in 2013, he made it clear that demolishing existing rental housing should only be allowed in unusual circumstances. [T]he 4-3 vote in favor was directly in defiance of city policy and the mayor’s directive regarding the preservation of existing rent-controlled housing. In the past year, the Planning Department has repeatedly refused to approve projects that involve a loss of rental units [...] The mayor has directed the Department to adopt policies which encourage the preservation of existing housing stock [as] the city’s highest priority.
DrScump 10y ago
There have, however, been a number of major fires in older apartment buildings in the past couple of years; at least two resulted in the whole building being condemned. I'm sure it's just coincidence.

by raldi 10y ago

MichaelBurge 10y ago

> The unforeseen consequence is that now city planning commissions in places like SF simply don't issue demolition permits anymore for pre-1979 apartment buildings. Is that even legal? It's one thing to use zoning for city planning as a general guideline, or to require permits to ensure work is done safely; but people ultimately have rights to their property. Has it been taken to court before? It's borderline a violation of the Takings Clause: "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation."

flamedoge 10y ago
State can take from citizen with just compensation via eminent domain, so people really do not have rights to real estate. They have rights to market value of property.
dexterdog 10y ago
Of course it's legal. Just ask the guys that write the laws to protect the people who pay for their campaigns.

timr 10y ago

"The unforeseen consequence is that now city planning commissions in places like SF simply don't issue demolition permits anymore for pre-1979 apartment buildings." That isn't true. There's a well-defined process for it -- demolition is one of the few just causes for eviction here, and the planning department only has to take rent control into consideration as one factor when issuing new permits -- and it happens regularly in SF: https://www.sftu.org/merger/ https://www.sftu.org/merger/ http://planning.sanfranciscocode.org/3/317/ http://planning.sanfranciscocode.org/3/317/ Demolition permits are also so routinely issued for rent-controlled buildings in NYC that landlords are using it as a tactic to push out rent-controlled tenants: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/realestate/02cover.html?pagewanted=print http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/realestate/02cover.html?pa...

sroussey 10y ago
Trinity demolished buildings by civic center, but were required to move the people there into the new buildings at the same rent controlled rates. So it isn't true in a strict sense, but effectively it's true.
raldi 10y ago
It happens very rarely, and when it does, it's a scandal and a total "man bites dog" story: http://48hills.org/2014/09/08/sf-planners-decide-just-fine-demolish-rent-controlled-housing/ http://48hills.org/2014/09/08/sf-planners-decide-just-fine-d... Gabriel Ng & Architechs Inc. wants to build two new structures on the large corner lot at 26th and Clement. Each building would have three units, with three-bedrooms each. The project sponsor argued that there’s a need for family housing in the city, and that six new units, which most likely would be sold as condos, would help the crisis. But to make room for one of the buildings, the project calls for the demolition of an existing apartment building with two smaller rent-controlled units. And that’s something the city isn’t supposed to allow. In fact, when the mayor with great fanfare issued his housing directive in 2013, he made it clear that demolishing existing rental housing should only be allowed in unusual circumstances. [T]he 4-3 vote in favor was directly in defiance of city policy and the mayor’s directive regarding the preservation of existing rent-controlled housing. In the past year, the Planning Department has repeatedly refused to approve projects that involve a loss of rental units [...] The mayor has directed the Department to adopt policies which encourage the preservation of existing housing stock [as] the city’s highest priority.

DrScump 10y ago

There have, however, been a number of major fires in older apartment buildings in the past couple of years; at least two resulted in the whole building being condemned. I'm sure it's just coincidence.