5 ms·

California is particularly bad in terms of laws preventing development. Opponents of development, even for approved plans, can delay them by years by claiming v

California is particularly bad in terms of laws preventing development. Opponents of development, even for approved plans, can delay them by years by claiming various review processes, particularly environmental, which take a long time. There are many processes in place to disapprove of something, but none to approve to counteract them.

m_mueller 10y ago
I just keep wondering what it is in particular though. Here's why: I'm Swiss. We have a strong conservative party (~30%, the largest party actually) that closely aligns with the NIMBYs. We have direct democracy, a strong tool to shut down any new law if people don't like it, and basically the main tool of opposition (our local and national governments are pretty much all shared between all larger parties, so there isn't really an opposition in the form of a party, rather it's the people's referendums). We also have very strong neighbourhood protection laws that make it such that modestly large hobby groups can get together and shut down large projects. Example: A football stadium project in Zurich was shut down this way. We also have very strong protection of 'historical sites', that goes as far as protecting 19th century industrial buildings in places (one such was actually moved by 20m to make way for a train track recently... absolutely nuts). So, in total, I don't really get how it could get any worse for large public projects. And yet Switzerland in general and Zurich in particular is opening up new tunnels, streetcar lines, local train lines, viaducts, you name it, every other year or so. Zurich's public transit network in particular is crazy dense. When I first saw SF main station I thought I must have gotten off by accident in some local backwater, that's how disparate the situation is. Honestly, my 10'000 people hometown's train station probably almost sees about as much foot traffic as SF main station. And that's not even talking about Japan, which is another level of crazy. Anyways, it still remains a mystery to me.
- niftich 10y ago
  As an outsider to Switzerland, I'd say the Swiss see quality-of-life (including things like education, transportation) as a national security issue, as a way to remain competitive and relevant in a globalized world where most people can underbid them, and therefore they invest strongly in projects that promote an educated, happy, productive, globally competitive populace. The Alpine tunnels and motorways are a part of this, as they ensure that Switzerland will remain an attractive option for cross-EU freight (instead of going around) but so are more local initiatives that improve conditions in the cities and cantons. EDIT: In many ways, the same applies to Japan. Meanwhile SF feels no such pressure. Plenty of people (and companies) are all-too willing to move there regardless. If/when at some point SF experiences a decline, these skipped investments will begin to be sorely missed.
  - m_mueller 10y ago
    I think you may have a point, although as a resident for a combined ~25y I tend to have less rose tinted glasses about Swiss government. Here's my take on it though: Swiss people do have comparatively high trust in their government. Not because they like the people sitting there, not because they are deemed very competent (in fact Swiss governments are almost by-design boring and just cogs in a machine), but: We feel safe in knowing that if they go just moderately crazy they can be shut down by popular vote within months. The social safety net is another huge factor I think, and probably a bigger one than the citizen rights: There's lots of comfort in knowing that if all goes wrong, you still have a comfortable apartment, your medical bills are covered and you can still send your kids to be best schools in the country - basically all that happens is that you can't take any vacations abroad and you can't go and buy expensive toys you don't need. This makes people much more relaxed, which in turn is often necessary when working together on big projects - if everyone is just in constant ass-covering-defense-mode, things like these will just either never happen or the cost will go through the roof. The thing is though, the US was by far the best nation at this just 50 years ago. The interstate system, the moon landing, Bell Labs, Xerox Parc, MIT... the US is still basically running on top of these efforts from back then. Was it just Reaganism that destroyed it, with later democratic presidents asleep at the wheel? (e.g. Bill Clinton pushed through and signed the money-for-work social program, destroying the old safety net)
    - jessaustin 10y ago
      ...if everyone is just in constant ass-covering-defense-mode, things like these will just either never happen or the cost will go through the roof. This is basically every USA public project, and it forms a vicious circle. Because some highway was built some time with an inadequately-compacted roadbed, highway inspectors have to sign off on the compaction of every quarter-mile of roadbed. Because highway inspectors can never be fired, they all eventually succumb to the "inspect from the pickup truck" method. Because inspectors are nominally responsible for quality control, no road builder can ever be held accountable for inadequately compacted roadbed. The result is that vehicles with inadequate dampening often leave the road surface entirely at e.g. each end of every interstate bridge. The thing is though, the US was by far the best nation at this just 50 years ago. The interstate system, the moon landing, Bell Labs, Xerox Parc, MIT... the US is still basically running on top of these efforts from back then. These projects were completed by the Greatest generation, managed without pity by the Lost generation. When we again have generations so well prepared by their formative experiences to work as they did, perhaps we'll have more successful giant centralizing projects like that. If world wars are the price of such abilities, one might rather we did without.
- hueving 10y ago
  NIMBYs are not constrained to conservative people at all here. I know very liberal people in SF that constantly vote against any improvements to the city because they 'don't want the feel to change'.
  - m_mueller 10y ago
    What does liberal even mean in the US then? If it's neither pushing personal liberties nor corporate liberties nor progressiveness ... it's just another form of conservative thinking. So you got a two party system with two conservative parties. No wonder, really.
    - jessaustin 10y ago
      Having attained this understanding, one might never again be surprised by USA politics...
    - ubernostrum 10y ago
      Many liberals in the US are skeptical of "growth" or "development" plans because they're seen as inevitably gentrifying neighborhoods (making areas where poor people could afford to live suddenly unaffordable) and transferring all the direct financial benefits to large chain/franchise corporations instead of to local residents who need the help.
      - vertex-four 10y ago
        To be fair, where I am in the UK, that's actually the case with my council's development plans. The goal is almost always to bring in more national chains and multinational businesses, not to promote local business or do anything to improve the quality of life of local people.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
      >So you got a two party system with two conservative parties. No wonder, really. Right, now you're getting it. What we desperately need is some socialists.
- aomurphy 10y ago
  It's path dependent. Many things happened in the SF Bay area that led to this. Here are factors in a rough order of importance. 1) Most people's savings are in housing. I do not know if this is the case in Switzerland, but in Anglo countries, the majority of most people's money lies in housing. So right there is an enormous incentive to not increase the supply of housing. This is also heavily influenced by the fact that American schools are funded by local property taxes, so not only does the value of your home determine your savings, but also the quality of your child's education. I think this is the fundamental issue, but not the only one. 2) Strong property rights, etc. covered above. It seems like you have this in Switzerland 3) Now, historical reasons. In the 1950s - 70s there was major development of American "inner cities", which mostly consisted of destroying minority neighborhoods and replacing them with freeways. This was a legacy of the fact that at the time the only urban planners where all transportation engineers, and viscous racism. This is important as it led to minority groups deciding that most "development plans" are actually plans to evict them (historically, not that far off). That things were handled so badly led to the first anti-development movement [1]. See the Fillmore District for such an example, although they didn't build a highway through it. See also [2]. 4) The next thing to think about is prop 13. Prop 13 basically limited the amount that property taxes on residential areas to roughly 1~2% no matter what. This also brings up an important distinction between Switzerland and California: to my understanding you have citizen initiatives, but they are consulted on and shaped by the legislator. California's are... not. They are often poorly designed. This had many knock on effects, the most important of which for our story is that now cities have little incentive to build more residential housing, since corporate property tax rates are not so capped. 5) In the '60s and '70s, as alluded the anti-growth movement began. This movement reacted to justifiable worries about the destruction of communities, environmental, and historical damage by demanding little growth. 6) Both the anti-growth movement and Prop 13. came about in the '70s, when rent control was also passed in SF. Rent Control means that there is little incentive to invest in an already owned property, and it means that if a new building is built, it likely won't be affordable for low income people who are on rent control. 7) Racism. This is touchy, but in the 1950s and 1960s, many many white Americans left the cities to live in new suburbs, so called "White Flight", with government loan help which blacks could not receive. This was coupled with laws passed against obvious housing discrimination (such as so called "compacts" which made it illegal to sell to non-whites), so moving to a suburb with high housing prices meant that mostly poorer blacks could not buy houses there. It's difficult to say how much this plays out today, but it had a really strong founder effect in most outlying communities, leading to a culture opposed to mass transit ("it'll bring those people here") and multi-person housing ("I love my community of single family homes. It's not my problem if people can't afford housing here. We're full"). So basically everyone is opposed to more building. Minorities are convinced that more building will price them out (true) and that development is likely biased against them, preservation activists don't want new things built, suburban communities don't want to become any denser, municipalities prefer business over homes for tax reasons, and everyone who owns land has no desire to build more. [1] http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=The_Freeway_Revolt http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=The_Freeway_Revolt [2] http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Redevelopment_A-1_and_Origin_of_St._Francis_Square http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Redevelopment_A-1_and...

m_mueller 10y ago

I just keep wondering what it is in particular though. Here's why: I'm Swiss. We have a strong conservative party (~30%, the largest party actually) that closely aligns with the NIMBYs. We have direct democracy, a strong tool to shut down any new law if people don't like it, and basically the main tool of opposition (our local and national governments are pretty much all shared between all larger parties, so there isn't really an opposition in the form of a party, rather it's the people's referendums). We also have very strong neighbourhood protection laws that make it such that modestly large hobby groups can get together and shut down large projects. Example: A football stadium project in Zurich was shut down this way. We also have very strong protection of 'historical sites', that goes as far as protecting 19th century industrial buildings in places (one such was actually moved by 20m to make way for a train track recently... absolutely nuts). So, in total, I don't really get how it could get any worse for large public projects. And yet Switzerland in general and Zurich in particular is opening up new tunnels, streetcar lines, local train lines, viaducts, you name it, every other year or so. Zurich's public transit network in particular is crazy dense. When I first saw SF main station I thought I must have gotten off by accident in some local backwater, that's how disparate the situation is. Honestly, my 10'000 people hometown's train station probably almost sees about as much foot traffic as SF main station. And that's not even talking about Japan, which is another level of crazy. Anyways, it still remains a mystery to me.

niftich 10y ago
As an outsider to Switzerland, I'd say the Swiss see quality-of-life (including things like education, transportation) as a national security issue, as a way to remain competitive and relevant in a globalized world where most people can underbid them, and therefore they invest strongly in projects that promote an educated, happy, productive, globally competitive populace. The Alpine tunnels and motorways are a part of this, as they ensure that Switzerland will remain an attractive option for cross-EU freight (instead of going around) but so are more local initiatives that improve conditions in the cities and cantons. EDIT: In many ways, the same applies to Japan. Meanwhile SF feels no such pressure. Plenty of people (and companies) are all-too willing to move there regardless. If/when at some point SF experiences a decline, these skipped investments will begin to be sorely missed.
- m_mueller 10y ago
  I think you may have a point, although as a resident for a combined ~25y I tend to have less rose tinted glasses about Swiss government. Here's my take on it though: Swiss people do have comparatively high trust in their government. Not because they like the people sitting there, not because they are deemed very competent (in fact Swiss governments are almost by-design boring and just cogs in a machine), but: We feel safe in knowing that if they go just moderately crazy they can be shut down by popular vote within months. The social safety net is another huge factor I think, and probably a bigger one than the citizen rights: There's lots of comfort in knowing that if all goes wrong, you still have a comfortable apartment, your medical bills are covered and you can still send your kids to be best schools in the country - basically all that happens is that you can't take any vacations abroad and you can't go and buy expensive toys you don't need. This makes people much more relaxed, which in turn is often necessary when working together on big projects - if everyone is just in constant ass-covering-defense-mode, things like these will just either never happen or the cost will go through the roof. The thing is though, the US was by far the best nation at this just 50 years ago. The interstate system, the moon landing, Bell Labs, Xerox Parc, MIT... the US is still basically running on top of these efforts from back then. Was it just Reaganism that destroyed it, with later democratic presidents asleep at the wheel? (e.g. Bill Clinton pushed through and signed the money-for-work social program, destroying the old safety net)
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    ...if everyone is just in constant ass-covering-defense-mode, things like these will just either never happen or the cost will go through the roof. This is basically every USA public project, and it forms a vicious circle. Because some highway was built some time with an inadequately-compacted roadbed, highway inspectors have to sign off on the compaction of every quarter-mile of roadbed. Because highway inspectors can never be fired, they all eventually succumb to the "inspect from the pickup truck" method. Because inspectors are nominally responsible for quality control, no road builder can ever be held accountable for inadequately compacted roadbed. The result is that vehicles with inadequate dampening often leave the road surface entirely at e.g. each end of every interstate bridge. The thing is though, the US was by far the best nation at this just 50 years ago. The interstate system, the moon landing, Bell Labs, Xerox Parc, MIT... the US is still basically running on top of these efforts from back then. These projects were completed by the Greatest generation, managed without pity by the Lost generation. When we again have generations so well prepared by their formative experiences to work as they did, perhaps we'll have more successful giant centralizing projects like that. If world wars are the price of such abilities, one might rather we did without.
hueving 10y ago
NIMBYs are not constrained to conservative people at all here. I know very liberal people in SF that constantly vote against any improvements to the city because they 'don't want the feel to change'.
- m_mueller 10y ago
  What does liberal even mean in the US then? If it's neither pushing personal liberties nor corporate liberties nor progressiveness ... it's just another form of conservative thinking. So you got a two party system with two conservative parties. No wonder, really.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    Having attained this understanding, one might never again be surprised by USA politics...
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    Many liberals in the US are skeptical of "growth" or "development" plans because they're seen as inevitably gentrifying neighborhoods (making areas where poor people could afford to live suddenly unaffordable) and transferring all the direct financial benefits to large chain/franchise corporations instead of to local residents who need the help.
    - vertex-four 10y ago
      To be fair, where I am in the UK, that's actually the case with my council's development plans. The goal is almost always to bring in more national chains and multinational businesses, not to promote local business or do anything to improve the quality of life of local people.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    >So you got a two party system with two conservative parties. No wonder, really. Right, now you're getting it. What we desperately need is some socialists.
aomurphy 10y ago
It's path dependent. Many things happened in the SF Bay area that led to this. Here are factors in a rough order of importance. 1) Most people's savings are in housing. I do not know if this is the case in Switzerland, but in Anglo countries, the majority of most people's money lies in housing. So right there is an enormous incentive to not increase the supply of housing. This is also heavily influenced by the fact that American schools are funded by local property taxes, so not only does the value of your home determine your savings, but also the quality of your child's education. I think this is the fundamental issue, but not the only one. 2) Strong property rights, etc. covered above. It seems like you have this in Switzerland 3) Now, historical reasons. In the 1950s - 70s there was major development of American "inner cities", which mostly consisted of destroying minority neighborhoods and replacing them with freeways. This was a legacy of the fact that at the time the only urban planners where all transportation engineers, and viscous racism. This is important as it led to minority groups deciding that most "development plans" are actually plans to evict them (historically, not that far off). That things were handled so badly led to the first anti-development movement [1]. See the Fillmore District for such an example, although they didn't build a highway through it. See also [2]. 4) The next thing to think about is prop 13. Prop 13 basically limited the amount that property taxes on residential areas to roughly 1~2% no matter what. This also brings up an important distinction between Switzerland and California: to my understanding you have citizen initiatives, but they are consulted on and shaped by the legislator. California's are... not. They are often poorly designed. This had many knock on effects, the most important of which for our story is that now cities have little incentive to build more residential housing, since corporate property tax rates are not so capped. 5) In the '60s and '70s, as alluded the anti-growth movement began. This movement reacted to justifiable worries about the destruction of communities, environmental, and historical damage by demanding little growth. 6) Both the anti-growth movement and Prop 13. came about in the '70s, when rent control was also passed in SF. Rent Control means that there is little incentive to invest in an already owned property, and it means that if a new building is built, it likely won't be affordable for low income people who are on rent control. 7) Racism. This is touchy, but in the 1950s and 1960s, many many white Americans left the cities to live in new suburbs, so called "White Flight", with government loan help which blacks could not receive. This was coupled with laws passed against obvious housing discrimination (such as so called "compacts" which made it illegal to sell to non-whites), so moving to a suburb with high housing prices meant that mostly poorer blacks could not buy houses there. It's difficult to say how much this plays out today, but it had a really strong founder effect in most outlying communities, leading to a culture opposed to mass transit ("it'll bring those people here") and multi-person housing ("I love my community of single family homes. It's not my problem if people can't afford housing here. We're full"). So basically everyone is opposed to more building. Minorities are convinced that more building will price them out (true) and that development is likely biased against them, preservation activists don't want new things built, suburban communities don't want to become any denser, municipalities prefer business over homes for tax reasons, and everyone who owns land has no desire to build more. [1] http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=The_Freeway_Revolt http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=The_Freeway_Revolt [2] http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Redevelopment_A-1_and_Origin_of_St._Francis_Square http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Redevelopment_A-1_and...