4 ms·

What I like about the cali coast is that while there is a lot of space, most of it is not developed. Besides a road, and the occasional vantage points. I don't

What I like about the cali coast is that while there is a lot of space, most of it is not developed. Besides a road, and the occasional vantage points. I don't think "mandatory developement" plans like this which just sprawl and sprawl is that good of an idea, it really takes out from the landscape. More information regarding Scott, https://www.crowdpac.com/candidates/559c008cac423b7c02c95011/scott-wiener https://www.crowdpac.com/candidates/559c008cac423b7c02c95011... Damn land developers.

pascalxus 10y ago
CA desperately needs more housing, especially places like the Bay Area. If this proposition passes, it might be a real good thing.
- burfog 10y ago
  CA has too much housing already. Consider water availability and traffic jams. In LA and sometimes in San Jose, consider smog. Why does everybody have to live there anyway? The country would be way better off if 25 million people left there for Tennessee, West Virginia, Mississippi, Kentucky, Michigan, Maine, Indiana, Arkansas, and Louisiana.
  - toodlebunions 10y ago
    If only. Tennessee is quite nice as is Maine.
  - gremlinsinc 10y ago
    yeah no kidding, blue hipsters need to spread their progressivism to the rest of the country(as I noticed most of those states lean Republican), if we're ever to have a more progressive country.
- Animats 10y ago
  Does it, though? Rents are leveling off in SF. Also, it's about time for this boom to collapse. When the first dot-com boom collapsed, about 40% of the twentysomethings in SF left. The big moment will be when Twitter goes under. They're the most visible troubled "tech" company in SF. If Uber tanks as well, SF's housing problem will be over for a while. (Twitter will live on, but it will probably be acquired by somebody like IAC, which buys troubled services at a discount and runs them cheaply. They own "about.com", "match.com", "dictionary.com", Vimeo, Ask, etc. If they ran Twitter, it would have far fewer employees.)
  - jacobolus 10y ago
    Rents in SF (and the rest of the Bay Area) are absolutely outrageous for anyone who isn’t a highly paid professional or already independently wealthy. Ideally SF rents would drop to half their current levels, or below.
turndown 10y ago
What's the alternative here? The intent of the bill isn't to force development where there shouldn't be any. It's to encourage it where it's needed most, but hasn't happened yet due to NIMBYism etc.
- edblarney 10y ago
  "What's the alternative here?" Supply and demand :) The state can't tell cities to 'build' - as cities don't do the 'building'. Private contractors do. Methinks they could make some state-level zoning laws or something ... But if there's incentive to build people will build. If there's not a not of building in the Valley ... it might be due to zoning and regulatory issues, perhaps they could streamline? :)
  - jacobolus 10y ago
    A state-mandated streamlined process (for cities not meeting their mandate) is exactly what this bill is proposing.
    - makomk 10y ago
      Which, effectively, incentivizes home-building companies to dig their heels on building so that they can get permission for schemes that are more profitable but wouldn't meet local approval.
  - kristopolous 10y ago
    Profit maximizing capitalists prefer the regulation. Especially if they have an existing property portfolio, a regulatory market against building provides an insulation from risk and a better return on their existing investments. New buildings require a much longer minimum investment timeline because the building doesn't exist yet. It's also far easier. So if you let the free-market write the rules here, you'd get essentially exactly what we already have, because that's essentially exactly what we've already done. Instead, if you really want a free-enterprise approach that encourages better land utilization, you'd need to look before you leap. For instance, a conservative rent and property resell value control would guarantee a maximum ROI for the buy/hold and do nothing/dump strategy. Otherwise, you'd have to indirectly subsidize new developments through tax breaks and other financial incentives (which is exactly what is happening) Alternatively, if you're willing to forgo the engineering and manufacturing of markets you could use community land trusts, which is likely a far simpler and less issue-prone model of execution. I've personally invested in a few and have seen a long-term, stable, dependable 3% ROI (which is better than other equally conservative vehicles) so this doesn't mean that capitalists and investors are gone - just all the messy parts.
whyenot 10y ago
Much of that coastal land is protected from development. What this proposed law will likely do is increase density in areas that are already developed. Having said that, I think you have a point: there are benefits to more housing, but there are also costs. Those houses or apartment complexes have to go somewhere, the infrastructure to support more people living in an area has to go somewhere. The bay area can't keep on growing forever.
- wbl 10y ago
  Does it look like Manhattan? No? Then we can put more people in.
  - roflchoppa 10y ago
    but thats the thing. SF is not NY.
    - cardiffspaceman 10y ago
      I was thinking about how SF is not NY as I was visiting NY's East 80s, walking from a subway stop to a friend's apartment, a month after having visited SF and driving the miserable 19th Street route.

pascalxus 10y ago

CA desperately needs more housing, especially places like the Bay Area. If this proposition passes, it might be a real good thing.

burfog 10y ago
CA has too much housing already. Consider water availability and traffic jams. In LA and sometimes in San Jose, consider smog. Why does everybody have to live there anyway? The country would be way better off if 25 million people left there for Tennessee, West Virginia, Mississippi, Kentucky, Michigan, Maine, Indiana, Arkansas, and Louisiana.
- toodlebunions 10y ago
  If only. Tennessee is quite nice as is Maine.
- gremlinsinc 10y ago
  yeah no kidding, blue hipsters need to spread their progressivism to the rest of the country(as I noticed most of those states lean Republican), if we're ever to have a more progressive country.
Animats 10y ago
Does it, though? Rents are leveling off in SF. Also, it's about time for this boom to collapse. When the first dot-com boom collapsed, about 40% of the twentysomethings in SF left. The big moment will be when Twitter goes under. They're the most visible troubled "tech" company in SF. If Uber tanks as well, SF's housing problem will be over for a while. (Twitter will live on, but it will probably be acquired by somebody like IAC, which buys troubled services at a discount and runs them cheaply. They own "about.com", "match.com", "dictionary.com", Vimeo, Ask, etc. If they ran Twitter, it would have far fewer employees.)
- jacobolus 10y ago
  Rents in SF (and the rest of the Bay Area) are absolutely outrageous for anyone who isn’t a highly paid professional or already independently wealthy. Ideally SF rents would drop to half their current levels, or below.

turndown 10y ago

What's the alternative here? The intent of the bill isn't to force development where there shouldn't be any. It's to encourage it where it's needed most, but hasn't happened yet due to NIMBYism etc.

edblarney 10y ago
"What's the alternative here?" Supply and demand :) The state can't tell cities to 'build' - as cities don't do the 'building'. Private contractors do. Methinks they could make some state-level zoning laws or something ... But if there's incentive to build people will build. If there's not a not of building in the Valley ... it might be due to zoning and regulatory issues, perhaps they could streamline? :)
- jacobolus 10y ago
  A state-mandated streamlined process (for cities not meeting their mandate) is exactly what this bill is proposing.
  - makomk 10y ago
    Which, effectively, incentivizes home-building companies to dig their heels on building so that they can get permission for schemes that are more profitable but wouldn't meet local approval.
- kristopolous 10y ago
  Profit maximizing capitalists prefer the regulation. Especially if they have an existing property portfolio, a regulatory market against building provides an insulation from risk and a better return on their existing investments. New buildings require a much longer minimum investment timeline because the building doesn't exist yet. It's also far easier. So if you let the free-market write the rules here, you'd get essentially exactly what we already have, because that's essentially exactly what we've already done. Instead, if you really want a free-enterprise approach that encourages better land utilization, you'd need to look before you leap. For instance, a conservative rent and property resell value control would guarantee a maximum ROI for the buy/hold and do nothing/dump strategy. Otherwise, you'd have to indirectly subsidize new developments through tax breaks and other financial incentives (which is exactly what is happening) Alternatively, if you're willing to forgo the engineering and manufacturing of markets you could use community land trusts, which is likely a far simpler and less issue-prone model of execution. I've personally invested in a few and have seen a long-term, stable, dependable 3% ROI (which is better than other equally conservative vehicles) so this doesn't mean that capitalists and investors are gone - just all the messy parts.

whyenot 10y ago

Much of that coastal land is protected from development. What this proposed law will likely do is increase density in areas that are already developed. Having said that, I think you have a point: there are benefits to more housing, but there are also costs. Those houses or apartment complexes have to go somewhere, the infrastructure to support more people living in an area has to go somewhere. The bay area can't keep on growing forever.

wbl 10y ago
Does it look like Manhattan? No? Then we can put more people in.
- roflchoppa 10y ago
  but thats the thing. SF is not NY.
  - cardiffspaceman 10y ago
    I was thinking about how SF is not NY as I was visiting NY's East 80s, walking from a subway stop to a friend's apartment, a month after having visited SF and driving the miserable 19th Street route.