3 ms·

"- Work with builders to remove all regulations that prevent building." This would end disastrously. "All those earthquake safety regulations, those are really

"- Work with builders to remove all regulations that prevent building." This would end disastrously. "All those earthquake safety regulations, those are really preventing me from building." "Those environmental regulations, the ones that stop me from polluting everywhere, those are really preventing me from building." "- declare certain areas as innovation building zones: Remove all building regulations and let start ups build whatever residential areas in any way they can. Let innovation blossom without hamstringing it with countless regulations." See above. Most of those regulations were put into place for a reason. Also, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Oakland_warehouse_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Oakland_warehouse_fire

pascalxus 9y ago
We can't simply assume that removing those regulations will result in a disaster. Look at the actual data. Find, the regulations which limit the most building - maybe they're not even safety related. many parts of CEQA for instance does nothing to help the environment but has prevented huge amounts of housing. And for those that are safety related, maybe there's a way to alter them or at least get rid of them just temporarily until the homeless emergency has been mitigated. Anything is better than leaving people out on the street - in any case, that's not a decision you or i should make, but rather the people it affects.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  "We can't simply assume that removing those regulations will result in a disaster. " Yes, we absolutely can. If business can get around it, they will. And then when an earthquake hits, all that housing is destroyed.
  - peoplewindow 9y ago
    It's not impossible to build taller buildings than what you get in the valley that are still earthquake safe. Even just burying parking lots underground would probably 1.5x the amount of space available for building.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  "And for those that are safety related, maybe there's a way to alter them or at least get rid of them just temporarily until the homeless emergency has been mitigated. Anything is better than leaving people out on the street" I don't buy that argument for a second. Take, for instance, the Grenfell tower fire. Regulations were ignored, and 68 people died because of it.
pmoriarty 9y ago
Also see the Grenfell Tower fire, and the follow-up investigations which showed that many other buildings are at risk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenfell_Tower_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenfell_Tower_fire
peoplewindow 9y ago
Mass homelessness in one of the richest parts of the world is already a disaster!
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  Yes, it is. But ignoring regulation, much of which is there for a very good reason, is not the answer. The last thing anyone wants is for many homeless people to move into these buildings, and have them die because they weren't built to withstand an earthquake, or had improper cladding and went up in flames.
  - peoplewindow 9y ago
    But isn't this a false dichotomy? I don't think anyone is arguing the shortage of homes in the valley is due to earthquake or fire proofing. You can build earthquake resistant skyscrapers and SF is full of skyscrapers, but places like Mountain View seem to top out at 3 floors. The regulations in question seem to be more about keeping things low rise for aesthetics sake (assuming you agree that the bay area is pretty as is, which I don't).

pascalxus 9y ago

We can't simply assume that removing those regulations will result in a disaster. Look at the actual data. Find, the regulations which limit the most building - maybe they're not even safety related. many parts of CEQA for instance does nothing to help the environment but has prevented huge amounts of housing. And for those that are safety related, maybe there's a way to alter them or at least get rid of them just temporarily until the homeless emergency has been mitigated. Anything is better than leaving people out on the street - in any case, that's not a decision you or i should make, but rather the people it affects.

s73ver_ 9y ago
"We can't simply assume that removing those regulations will result in a disaster. " Yes, we absolutely can. If business can get around it, they will. And then when an earthquake hits, all that housing is destroyed.
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  It's not impossible to build taller buildings than what you get in the valley that are still earthquake safe. Even just burying parking lots underground would probably 1.5x the amount of space available for building.
s73ver_ 9y ago
"And for those that are safety related, maybe there's a way to alter them or at least get rid of them just temporarily until the homeless emergency has been mitigated. Anything is better than leaving people out on the street" I don't buy that argument for a second. Take, for instance, the Grenfell tower fire. Regulations were ignored, and 68 people died because of it.

pmoriarty 9y ago

Also see the Grenfell Tower fire, and the follow-up investigations which showed that many other buildings are at risk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenfell_Tower_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenfell_Tower_fire

peoplewindow 9y ago

Mass homelessness in one of the richest parts of the world is already a disaster!

s73ver_ 9y ago
Yes, it is. But ignoring regulation, much of which is there for a very good reason, is not the answer. The last thing anyone wants is for many homeless people to move into these buildings, and have them die because they weren't built to withstand an earthquake, or had improper cladding and went up in flames.
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  But isn't this a false dichotomy? I don't think anyone is arguing the shortage of homes in the valley is due to earthquake or fire proofing. You can build earthquake resistant skyscrapers and SF is full of skyscrapers, but places like Mountain View seem to top out at 3 floors. The regulations in question seem to be more about keeping things low rise for aesthetics sake (assuming you agree that the bay area is pretty as is, which I don't).