3 ms·

The simple reason why this will never happen in SF is because property owners have both the means and incentive to restrict housing supply. New York is rather

The simple reason why this will never happen in SF is because property owners have both the means and incentive to restrict housing supply. New York is rather different in that NIMBYism never had the formal tools to block development as effectively. In order to convince homeowners to allow expansion, you would need to pay them off somehow. Perhaps a large tax on new developments that is redistributed out to nearby property owners? EDIT: I suspect people don't like the implication that property owners should get even more, but fundamentally property owners are the ones that vote and go to city hall meetings because they have the most skin in the game. Political and economic power are already concentrated in their hands, so there is no workable solution without their consent.

aninhumer 10y ago
>Perhaps a large tax on new developments that is redistributed out to nearby property owners? Surely if this would work, developers would already be bribing NIMBYs directly? If they can't profit after the bribe, then they can't profit after the tax either.
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  There's significant friction in trying to bribe people out directly (e.g. did you bribe the right people, and did you pay them the right amount?). Every single transaction needs to be separately negotiated, and the developer, unlike the state, doesn't have access to all the existing value of the people they're negotiating with. The point of codifying this sort of payout is so that approval would happen automatically -- i.e. the law says the developer gets green lighted as long as they pay. Basically the 'negotiation' between developers and the community happens only once, during the legislative debate.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    It is a fact about legislatures that this sort of negotiation would take place again every year. Places with not enough housing would want lower rates, big developers would want the scheme to be restructured so that only their accountants and lawyers could figure it out, schools (and eventually numerous other public services) would want a piece of the action, etc. And NIMBYs would still protest new development. I upvoted you because you do identify a real challenge with bribery; but this solution won't solve that problem.
    - smallnamespace 10y ago
      I agree - certainly not convinced that this particular idea is a workable solution, but any eventual fix will definitely look like bribery just because of the political dynamics here.
ktRolster 10y ago
there is no workable solution without their consent. Governor Brown has a proposal that would work to improve things: http://www.sfexaminer.com/san-francisco-needs-governors-housing-bill/ http://www.sfexaminer.com/san-francisco-needs-governors-hous... http://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing4agrowingca.html http://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing4agrowingca.html

aninhumer 10y ago

>Perhaps a large tax on new developments that is redistributed out to nearby property owners? Surely if this would work, developers would already be bribing NIMBYs directly? If they can't profit after the bribe, then they can't profit after the tax either.

smallnamespace 10y ago
There's significant friction in trying to bribe people out directly (e.g. did you bribe the right people, and did you pay them the right amount?). Every single transaction needs to be separately negotiated, and the developer, unlike the state, doesn't have access to all the existing value of the people they're negotiating with. The point of codifying this sort of payout is so that approval would happen automatically -- i.e. the law says the developer gets green lighted as long as they pay. Basically the 'negotiation' between developers and the community happens only once, during the legislative debate.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  It is a fact about legislatures that this sort of negotiation would take place again every year. Places with not enough housing would want lower rates, big developers would want the scheme to be restructured so that only their accountants and lawyers could figure it out, schools (and eventually numerous other public services) would want a piece of the action, etc. And NIMBYs would still protest new development. I upvoted you because you do identify a real challenge with bribery; but this solution won't solve that problem.
  - smallnamespace 10y ago
    I agree - certainly not convinced that this particular idea is a workable solution, but any eventual fix will definitely look like bribery just because of the political dynamics here.

ktRolster 10y ago

there is no workable solution without their consent. Governor Brown has a proposal that would work to improve things: http://www.sfexaminer.com/san-francisco-needs-governors-housing-bill/ http://www.sfexaminer.com/san-francisco-needs-governors-hous... http://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing4agrowingca.html http://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing4agrowingca.html