3 ms·

They can certainly be in opposition in some scenarios, but in the case of SF, they fit together in a way that's coherent, if not well defined by the article. Z

by RickS 10y ago

They can certainly be in opposition in some scenarios, but in the case of SF, they fit together in a way that's coherent, if not well defined by the article. Zoning control != zoning restriction. Control over zoning can mean things like mixed use, autonomy at the lower levels (versus "our hands are tied by group X" situations), and issuing permits on a "default yes barring interrupts" basis, instead of a "default no pending complex approvals". Treating homes as investments is what leads to most NIMBY ways of thinking, which while harmful to the region at large, make perfect sense on a homeowner level. Many SF land owners have bought in at overvalued levels and continue to pay or receive overvalued rents. Motions that would make the city more affordable on the whole threaten the size of their returns, so people who treat homes as investments are often in direct opposition to what would be good for the less rich. TL;DR the 3 pieces you mention can coexist as "more homes, of more varieties, regardless of the fact that will threaten existing homeowners' ROI"

amluto 10y ago
> Treating homes as investments is what leads to most NIMBY ways of thinking, which while harmful to the region at large, make perfect sense on a homeowner level. Many SF land owners have bought in at overvalued levels and continue to pay or receive overvalued rents. This is something that puzzle me. If areas are upzoned and higher-density redevelopment becomes possible, then housing prices will drop. But housing prices aren't the same thing at all as land value. If I owned a small low-density unit on a small plot of land, I wouldn't be able to sell the house as such to someone who wanted to live in it for as much money, but I think the value if the property could redeveloped as-of-right at higher density would increase. So at least some plots of land should increase in value.

by RickS 10y ago

amluto 10y ago

> Treating homes as investments is what leads to most NIMBY ways of thinking, which while harmful to the region at large, make perfect sense on a homeowner level. Many SF land owners have bought in at overvalued levels and continue to pay or receive overvalued rents. This is something that puzzle me. If areas are upzoned and higher-density redevelopment becomes possible, then housing prices will drop. But housing prices aren't the same thing at all as land value. If I owned a small low-density unit on a small plot of land, I wouldn't be able to sell the house as such to someone who wanted to live in it for as much money, but I think the value if the property could redeveloped as-of-right at higher density would increase. So at least some plots of land should increase in value.