5 ms·

Overall, this seems like a good policy to me. However, I'm not sure I like the means used to achieve it. Do we really want to set a precedent where the state g

Overall, this seems like a good policy to me. However, I'm not sure I like the means used to achieve it. Do we really want to set a precedent where the state government comes in and overrides local regulations about things like zoning which are usually purely the responsibility of the local governments? I'm not necessarily saying I don't like this either... just thinking through the implications of living in a federal system. You want people to have maximum voice in the things that affect the places where they live, but you also don't want those people to abuse the privilege with NIMBY policies.

ebikelaw 9y ago
The state and cities do not share the same relationship that the states and the nation enjoy. The federal system is a creation of the states, and has enumerated powers. The states also create cities. So all the power lies with the state.
magila 9y ago
I find moving authority from the cities to the state more acceptable in this case because it merely mandates allowing economic activity to occur. None of these policies prevent citizens from voting with their wallets, developers will still only build things they can make a profit on.
asabjorn 9y ago
Housing externalities of cities decisions to for instance build offices while not adding sufficient housing is not limited to that city, essentially pushing those externalities onto surrounding cities and having them pay the housing as well as infrastructure cost. As proven by our current long-lasting housing crisis this is not a good medium to long-term solution. Because cities are too fine grained for containing most externalities office/housing/infrastructure decisions it is appropriate to move some housing regulation up to the state level as it is one step up from cities, and therefore the best place to coordinate between cities.
tmh79 9y ago
> "Do we really want to set a precedent where the state government comes in and overrides local regulations about things like zoning which are usually purely the responsibility of the local governments?" Yes, yes we do. Local control of land use is the reason we are in this mess. Local control of land use is the reason why our neighborhoods are still de facto segregated by race even though de jure segregation ended 50 years ago. Local control constricts the policy influencers to a circle that is too small, because it exlcudes from the discourse people who: 1) work in the locale in question, but cannot afford to live there, 2) people who commute through the locale in question, 3) people who live in a community that is not in the locale, but is impacted by the locale's land use decisions (ex: brisbane building 8m square feet of office and expecting SF to build housing for the workers).
- timr 9y ago
  "Yes, yes we do. Local control of land use is the reason we are in this mess." No, no we don't. I don't usually side with conservatives, but this is comically bad policy. It's a state power-grab for supply side controls -- planned economy thinking -- justified by Adam Smith rhetoric, because some folks in San Francisco have decided that they know what's wrong with the local planning of every other city in the state. It's especially irritating, because the transit corridors that this legislation targets -- BART, Caltrain, etc. -- suck, and the sheer vacuum of their suckage probably has more to do with local housing density than any particular zoning rule. I cracked up at your Brisbane example...people choose not to live in Brisbane because it's inconvenient to everywhere, not because Brisbane has zoning restrictions. You could let developers build skyscrapers right next to the single Caltrain station (you know...the one next to the city dump?), and they still won't do it, because the demand doesn't exist. People aren't clamoring to live in Brisbane, and office parks are probably the only thing that sells. Make it quick and painless to commute to Brisbane (or any other city) by something other than car, and you won't have to tell the local lawmakers how to set their rules. The flow of money will do it for you. This is just silly grandstanding, not practical legislation.
  - asabjorn 9y ago
    > ... It's a state power-grab for supply side controls -- planned economy thinking -- justified by Adam Smith rhetoric, because some folks in San Francisco have decided that they know what's wrong with the local planning of every other city in the state. How is this planned economy thinking? It seems to loosen regulation in local markets to allow developers to more readily meet demand. Quite to the contrary the current city zoning rules seem like planned economy thinking, because it makes a zoning plan that is rarely changed over even a decade-long timeline to match housing supply with the current demand. > people choose not to live in Brisbane because it's inconvenient to everywhere, not because Brisbane has zoning restrictions. Your argument seem to assume that the state will force developers to build where there is no demand. This law says nothing about that and the state has no such power, and this law to the contrary seek to ease regulation where there is demand for developers to build. Contrary to what you say Brisbane is served by public transit by both Muni and Caltrain. There is also a developer that wants to build a lot of new housing in Brisbane, so the market clearly think there is demand for new housing in Brisbane. The largest obstacle for the market to meet this demand is local zoning and the planning process in Brisbane.
closeparen 9y ago
Everyone is affected by the prohibitively high cost of moving to cities with good jobs and environmentally sustainable built environments. Small groups shouldn’t get to make their own laws to the detriment of society at large, any more than corporations or organized crime families should.

ebikelaw 9y ago

The state and cities do not share the same relationship that the states and the nation enjoy. The federal system is a creation of the states, and has enumerated powers. The states also create cities. So all the power lies with the state.

magila 9y ago

I find moving authority from the cities to the state more acceptable in this case because it merely mandates allowing economic activity to occur. None of these policies prevent citizens from voting with their wallets, developers will still only build things they can make a profit on.

asabjorn 9y ago

Housing externalities of cities decisions to for instance build offices while not adding sufficient housing is not limited to that city, essentially pushing those externalities onto surrounding cities and having them pay the housing as well as infrastructure cost. As proven by our current long-lasting housing crisis this is not a good medium to long-term solution. Because cities are too fine grained for containing most externalities office/housing/infrastructure decisions it is appropriate to move some housing regulation up to the state level as it is one step up from cities, and therefore the best place to coordinate between cities.

tmh79 9y ago

> "Do we really want to set a precedent where the state government comes in and overrides local regulations about things like zoning which are usually purely the responsibility of the local governments?" Yes, yes we do. Local control of land use is the reason we are in this mess. Local control of land use is the reason why our neighborhoods are still de facto segregated by race even though de jure segregation ended 50 years ago. Local control constricts the policy influencers to a circle that is too small, because it exlcudes from the discourse people who: 1) work in the locale in question, but cannot afford to live there, 2) people who commute through the locale in question, 3) people who live in a community that is not in the locale, but is impacted by the locale's land use decisions (ex: brisbane building 8m square feet of office and expecting SF to build housing for the workers).

timr 9y ago
"Yes, yes we do. Local control of land use is the reason we are in this mess." No, no we don't. I don't usually side with conservatives, but this is comically bad policy. It's a state power-grab for supply side controls -- planned economy thinking -- justified by Adam Smith rhetoric, because some folks in San Francisco have decided that they know what's wrong with the local planning of every other city in the state. It's especially irritating, because the transit corridors that this legislation targets -- BART, Caltrain, etc. -- suck, and the sheer vacuum of their suckage probably has more to do with local housing density than any particular zoning rule. I cracked up at your Brisbane example...people choose not to live in Brisbane because it's inconvenient to everywhere, not because Brisbane has zoning restrictions. You could let developers build skyscrapers right next to the single Caltrain station (you know...the one next to the city dump?), and they still won't do it, because the demand doesn't exist. People aren't clamoring to live in Brisbane, and office parks are probably the only thing that sells. Make it quick and painless to commute to Brisbane (or any other city) by something other than car, and you won't have to tell the local lawmakers how to set their rules. The flow of money will do it for you. This is just silly grandstanding, not practical legislation.
- asabjorn 9y ago
  > ... It's a state power-grab for supply side controls -- planned economy thinking -- justified by Adam Smith rhetoric, because some folks in San Francisco have decided that they know what's wrong with the local planning of every other city in the state. How is this planned economy thinking? It seems to loosen regulation in local markets to allow developers to more readily meet demand. Quite to the contrary the current city zoning rules seem like planned economy thinking, because it makes a zoning plan that is rarely changed over even a decade-long timeline to match housing supply with the current demand. > people choose not to live in Brisbane because it's inconvenient to everywhere, not because Brisbane has zoning restrictions. Your argument seem to assume that the state will force developers to build where there is no demand. This law says nothing about that and the state has no such power, and this law to the contrary seek to ease regulation where there is demand for developers to build. Contrary to what you say Brisbane is served by public transit by both Muni and Caltrain. There is also a developer that wants to build a lot of new housing in Brisbane, so the market clearly think there is demand for new housing in Brisbane. The largest obstacle for the market to meet this demand is local zoning and the planning process in Brisbane.

closeparen 9y ago

Everyone is affected by the prohibitively high cost of moving to cities with good jobs and environmentally sustainable built environments. Small groups shouldn’t get to make their own laws to the detriment of society at large, any more than corporations or organized crime families should.