3 ms·

Ironically the need for such a larger transit infrastructure is the lack of very-high-rise building and trying to maintain 'character' in neighborhoods that sho

Ironically the need for such a larger transit infrastructure is the lack of very-high-rise building and trying to maintain 'character' in neighborhoods that should now have near lumber limit MDUs. Building a stronger transit system, such as this article is talking about, does allow a city to spread further out, but both such a system to enable lower housing density and commutes or more housing units (lessening the need to commute) are plagued by NIMBYs in many (most/all?) metropolitan areas (at least all the ones I've heard out outside of Texas / "the south").

wahern 9y ago
Personally, I'd like to see the city exploring an expansion of rent control in exchange for improved developers' rights, including automatic approvals and increased density. Currently only buildings built before circa 1979 are rent controlled; anything built after is exempt. This creates an obvious dilemma for a city and community which evolved and adapted to the economic tradeoffs of rent control. What if developers opted into rent control after an initial 20-30 year payback period? It would be easy to create property instruments that ensure a property became rent-controlled after a certain period.[1] Part of the reason (certainly not the whole reason) NIMBY politics is so powerful in the city in the face of such gargantuan supply-demand imbalance is because homeowners have been able to conscript renters into their fight against development on the premise that development diminishes the rent control stock. I think something like 70% of households in this city rent, which means the underlying self-interests at play are nothing like those in suburban municipalities. Dangle the stick of _more_ rent controlled stock in front of the population, and we might see a huge shift in opinion. [1] I believe there's a state law which prevents San Francisco from expanding rent control. But I bet that a quasi-voluntary system might either pass muster under the law, or at least be an easier sell to Sacramento in exchange for loosening the restriction.

wahern 9y ago

Personally, I'd like to see the city exploring an expansion of rent control in exchange for improved developers' rights, including automatic approvals and increased density. Currently only buildings built before circa 1979 are rent controlled; anything built after is exempt. This creates an obvious dilemma for a city and community which evolved and adapted to the economic tradeoffs of rent control. What if developers opted into rent control after an initial 20-30 year payback period? It would be easy to create property instruments that ensure a property became rent-controlled after a certain period.[1] Part of the reason (certainly not the whole reason) NIMBY politics is so powerful in the city in the face of such gargantuan supply-demand imbalance is because homeowners have been able to conscript renters into their fight against development on the premise that development diminishes the rent control stock. I think something like 70% of households in this city rent, which means the underlying self-interests at play are nothing like those in suburban municipalities. Dangle the stick of _more_ rent controlled stock in front of the population, and we might see a huge shift in opinion. [1] I believe there's a state law which prevents San Francisco from expanding rent control. But I bet that a quasi-voluntary system might either pass muster under the law, or at least be an easier sell to Sacramento in exchange for loosening the restriction.