4 ms·

If most people really wanted denser housing, the laws would change. Despite money and developers being aligned for dense housing, the majority stops it because

If most people really wanted denser housing, the laws would change. Despite money and developers being aligned for dense housing, the majority stops it because they like their houses. What you are really saying is the a minority of people want dense housing where people already own single family homes, and aren't getting their way.

TulliusCicero 9y ago
Most Americans are hardly even aware of zoning. It's an obscure section of law. Thus, cultural momentum prevails. And the people who would most want denser housing are the people who would move to an area, and they don't get a vote. I moved to Munich last year. I can hardly even tell which neighborhoods are affluent or poorer, it's so different from the US. What I'm saying is that we have entrenched economic segregation in our country, and people like you defend it because "whatever is desirable is acceptable".
- WillPostForFood 9y ago
  As someone in the bay area in a SFH, I can tell you that in my neighborhood that is incorrect. People are incredibly aware of zoning, it isn't obscure, and people obsess over it in the neighborhood groups and lists.
alanbernstein 9y ago
You mean, the majority of money stops it?
- WillPostForFood 9y ago
  No, not money, votes. They money (developers, businesses) have more money, and want more development.
0xB31B1B 9y ago
“If more people wanted dense housing the laws would change” - This is not true. I do a lot of political organizing in this space. The issue here (SFBA) is that the zoning laws are made by the current residents of a small geographic area (neighborhood or city). The problem is that narrowing the universe of stakeholders that can influence zoning to “current residents” excludes a lot of people who would want to densify the area, mainly people who commute to that community to work because they cannot afford the home prices near their job. The people who are most impacted by these communities decisions to outlaw apartments are politically disenfranchised by the existing political structures. A great example of this is Cupertino, a city of 35k, which recently built the new Apple campus, which has room for 12k workers. The city of Cupertino did not build new housing for 12k new people though, so they take the payroll takes from Apple, and the sales taxes from the vibrant local economy these 12k commuters create, and exclude the 12k new workers from the benefits of their taxation (schools, parks, etc) through not building housing for them. We need to change the laws so the universe of stakeholders in zoning decisions expands from the current set of people who already live in a small geographic area, hopefully giving the power to a regional government or the state itself.
- WillPostForFood 9y ago
  That's my point, current residents should make the law. If you want to change it, convince them, or move in and vote yourself. Renters can vote too. Non residents shouldn't get to dictate to residents how to run their cities. RE: Cupertino, I agree. It is unfair for cities to add workers without housing. It would be fair to demand cities match new housing with new office space. But given that cities should be able to opt out of building anything.
azernik 9y ago
Most people in small cities that don't have enough people for their land area don't want denser area. Basically, a small and privileged subset in cities like Berkeley is making decisions against the will of the majority of Californians - hence laws being passed easily on the state level to override local government.
- WillPostForFood 9y ago
  Why shouldn't Berkeley make rules for Berkeley? They are the stakeholders. If a majority of Berkeley wanted density, but Sacramento said no, that would be weird. Whose interests are being upheld when the representatives of Chino, and Long Beach are determining Berkeley's zoning?
  - TulliusCicero 9y ago
    Why is that weird? We have state and federal level laws for all kinds of things. A city's zoning laws don't just affect it, as the insane housing prices in the bay area will attest to. We tried letting cities decide on their own, the results have been atrocious. That's why recently the state legislature recently passed a bunch more laws to compel cities to allow more housing. If you want affordable rents, the status quo is clearly broken.
    - WillPostForFood 9y ago
      Because 80% of the legislators of the state aren't from the bay area, and have no stake in setting local zoning, and really are in no position to say whether the results are atrocious or perfection.
shostack 9y ago
Just like the majority of people do not want this latest tax reform to pass? Right, let me know how a voting majority works out for you.
- WillPostForFood 9y ago
  Wait until the 2018 election before you make that judgement.
  - shostack 9y ago
    Why? This is happening now. Democrats likely won't take back what they need to make changes, and this is going to crater the economy.
    - WillPostForFood 9y ago
      Then maybe you should questopm your assumptions. There is certainly no reason to think it will crater the economy. Whether it will help much is questionable. If it does, Democrats could take 100 seats when coupled with the Trump antipathy.

TulliusCicero 9y ago

Most Americans are hardly even aware of zoning. It's an obscure section of law. Thus, cultural momentum prevails. And the people who would most want denser housing are the people who would move to an area, and they don't get a vote. I moved to Munich last year. I can hardly even tell which neighborhoods are affluent or poorer, it's so different from the US. What I'm saying is that we have entrenched economic segregation in our country, and people like you defend it because "whatever is desirable is acceptable".

WillPostForFood 9y ago
As someone in the bay area in a SFH, I can tell you that in my neighborhood that is incorrect. People are incredibly aware of zoning, it isn't obscure, and people obsess over it in the neighborhood groups and lists.

alanbernstein 9y ago

You mean, the majority of money stops it?

WillPostForFood 9y ago
No, not money, votes. They money (developers, businesses) have more money, and want more development.

0xB31B1B 9y ago

“If more people wanted dense housing the laws would change” - This is not true. I do a lot of political organizing in this space. The issue here (SFBA) is that the zoning laws are made by the current residents of a small geographic area (neighborhood or city). The problem is that narrowing the universe of stakeholders that can influence zoning to “current residents” excludes a lot of people who would want to densify the area, mainly people who commute to that community to work because they cannot afford the home prices near their job. The people who are most impacted by these communities decisions to outlaw apartments are politically disenfranchised by the existing political structures. A great example of this is Cupertino, a city of 35k, which recently built the new Apple campus, which has room for 12k workers. The city of Cupertino did not build new housing for 12k new people though, so they take the payroll takes from Apple, and the sales taxes from the vibrant local economy these 12k commuters create, and exclude the 12k new workers from the benefits of their taxation (schools, parks, etc) through not building housing for them. We need to change the laws so the universe of stakeholders in zoning decisions expands from the current set of people who already live in a small geographic area, hopefully giving the power to a regional government or the state itself.

WillPostForFood 9y ago
That's my point, current residents should make the law. If you want to change it, convince them, or move in and vote yourself. Renters can vote too. Non residents shouldn't get to dictate to residents how to run their cities. RE: Cupertino, I agree. It is unfair for cities to add workers without housing. It would be fair to demand cities match new housing with new office space. But given that cities should be able to opt out of building anything.

azernik 9y ago

Most people in small cities that don't have enough people for their land area don't want denser area. Basically, a small and privileged subset in cities like Berkeley is making decisions against the will of the majority of Californians - hence laws being passed easily on the state level to override local government.

WillPostForFood 9y ago
Why shouldn't Berkeley make rules for Berkeley? They are the stakeholders. If a majority of Berkeley wanted density, but Sacramento said no, that would be weird. Whose interests are being upheld when the representatives of Chino, and Long Beach are determining Berkeley's zoning?
- TulliusCicero 9y ago
  Why is that weird? We have state and federal level laws for all kinds of things. A city's zoning laws don't just affect it, as the insane housing prices in the bay area will attest to. We tried letting cities decide on their own, the results have been atrocious. That's why recently the state legislature recently passed a bunch more laws to compel cities to allow more housing. If you want affordable rents, the status quo is clearly broken.
  - WillPostForFood 9y ago
    Because 80% of the legislators of the state aren't from the bay area, and have no stake in setting local zoning, and really are in no position to say whether the results are atrocious or perfection.

shostack 9y ago

Just like the majority of people do not want this latest tax reform to pass? Right, let me know how a voting majority works out for you.

WillPostForFood 9y ago
Wait until the 2018 election before you make that judgement.
- shostack 9y ago
  Why? This is happening now. Democrats likely won't take back what they need to make changes, and this is going to crater the economy.
  - WillPostForFood 9y ago
    Then maybe you should questopm your assumptions. There is certainly no reason to think it will crater the economy. Whether it will help much is questionable. If it does, Democrats could take 100 seats when coupled with the Trump antipathy.