5 ms·

> "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 th

by 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.
  - timr 9y ago
    "How is this planned economy thinking? It seems to loosen regulation in local markets to allow developers to more readily meet demand." It's state government trying to override local economic (zoning) decisions. It's the very definition of a centrally planned economy. "Contrary to what you say Brisbane is served by public transit by both Muni and Caltrain." There's one Caltrain stop. It's a 30-minute walk from the residential part of Brisbane, across the freeway and around the dump. MUNI bus service to the area is irregular and unreliable. The only practical commute option is car.
    - asabjorn 9y ago
      > It's state government trying to override local economic (zoning) decisions. It's the very definition of a centrally planned economy. You are mischaracterizing the law and what zoning is. Zoning does not produce any housing and is instead an artificial constraint on housing supply. The planning after this law is still done at the city level, but the city is constrained in what planning it can do. > There's one Caltrain stop. It's a 30-minute walk from the residential part of Brisbane, across the freeway and around the dump. MUNI bus service to the area is irregular and unreliable. The only practical commute option is car. The developer is proposing to build upon the landfill just next to the caltrain stop, so for the new development this won't be a concern.
dbatten 9y ago
Swinging back on this, because I find this stuff interesting. I don't necessarily disagree with anything you say here. But I'm still not sure it gets at the crux of my question. If local control of land use systematically creates problems for people that don't have the privilege of living in the jurisdiction in question, maybe it's time to put control of land use or certain aspects of land use in the hands of regional counsels of government (much like Metropolitan Planning Organizations plan for transportation needs at a metro-area level, rather than a city level). I think that lets you start solving not only the problem in question in the article, but all sorts of other problems that you address. (Maybe this could work at the State level too, but I think that's too broad. People in San Jose certainly have some interest in San Francisco land use... but do people in Sacramento? Not much.) But that's very different from leaving land use in the hands of city governments, then overriding them on individual issues when you don't like what they're doing. Right? I think part of my thinking on this is shaped from living in NC, and watching the insanity that was HB2 (which you likely heard of, if you're up on the news). Basically, Charlotte raises minimum wage and adds some protections for LGBT folks, state legislatures doesn't like it, and so passes a law preventing local governments from being able to set the minimum wage in their area, or grant rights/protections beyond what's granted by the state. The fallout was absolute insanity for, like, a year. All of that to say - if you want State government overriding local government rights, you have to be prepared for the day when the State legislature is doing something you don't like, and the local government is doing something you do. Right? In the end, like I said before, I think this policy is good, but I think there's better ways to go about it. Regional counsels of government having more authority over land use seems like a great start to me. Actually, I'd be interested to know if somebody's proposed that.
- tmh79 9y ago
  I agree with your idea that, in an ideal world, we should promote more land use and transit decision making to metro level governments. The problem is that politics is the art of the possible, and this is the set of stakeholders we can currently wrangle to push forth a pro-housing agenda. > if you want State government overriding local government rights, you have to be prepared for the day when the State legislature is doing something you don't like, and the local government is doing something you do. Right? I do some volunteering/organizing in local politics, and there are a few "problem domains" within local government. Pretty much everything in local government boils down to "land use", "police" and "education". Additionally, smaller governments are _always_ more beholden to parochial interests than state governments are. Its kind of a "sample size" issue with local governments. As an example, lets say that 1 in 1000 people cares a lot about 1 specific issue and get involved, and that there is a universe of 10 issues in which government is looking to work on. In a city of 20k people, you would expect that each of these 10 issues would have thought leadership promulgated by only 2 people, thus the debates, policy crafting etc will be highly impacted by these 2 peoples narrow views. in a state government of 2m people, there will be more like 200 people interested in thought leadership and policy crafting on a single issue, thus the ultimate policies crafted will be less beholden to the specific biases of individuals.

by tmh79 9y ago

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.
- timr 9y ago
  "How is this planned economy thinking? It seems to loosen regulation in local markets to allow developers to more readily meet demand." It's state government trying to override local economic (zoning) decisions. It's the very definition of a centrally planned economy. "Contrary to what you say Brisbane is served by public transit by both Muni and Caltrain." There's one Caltrain stop. It's a 30-minute walk from the residential part of Brisbane, across the freeway and around the dump. MUNI bus service to the area is irregular and unreliable. The only practical commute option is car.
  - asabjorn 9y ago
    > It's state government trying to override local economic (zoning) decisions. It's the very definition of a centrally planned economy. You are mischaracterizing the law and what zoning is. Zoning does not produce any housing and is instead an artificial constraint on housing supply. The planning after this law is still done at the city level, but the city is constrained in what planning it can do. > There's one Caltrain stop. It's a 30-minute walk from the residential part of Brisbane, across the freeway and around the dump. MUNI bus service to the area is irregular and unreliable. The only practical commute option is car. The developer is proposing to build upon the landfill just next to the caltrain stop, so for the new development this won't be a concern.

dbatten 9y ago

Swinging back on this, because I find this stuff interesting. I don't necessarily disagree with anything you say here. But I'm still not sure it gets at the crux of my question. If local control of land use systematically creates problems for people that don't have the privilege of living in the jurisdiction in question, maybe it's time to put control of land use or certain aspects of land use in the hands of regional counsels of government (much like Metropolitan Planning Organizations plan for transportation needs at a metro-area level, rather than a city level). I think that lets you start solving not only the problem in question in the article, but all sorts of other problems that you address. (Maybe this could work at the State level too, but I think that's too broad. People in San Jose certainly have some interest in San Francisco land use... but do people in Sacramento? Not much.) But that's very different from leaving land use in the hands of city governments, then overriding them on individual issues when you don't like what they're doing. Right? I think part of my thinking on this is shaped from living in NC, and watching the insanity that was HB2 (which you likely heard of, if you're up on the news). Basically, Charlotte raises minimum wage and adds some protections for LGBT folks, state legislatures doesn't like it, and so passes a law preventing local governments from being able to set the minimum wage in their area, or grant rights/protections beyond what's granted by the state. The fallout was absolute insanity for, like, a year. All of that to say - if you want State government overriding local government rights, you have to be prepared for the day when the State legislature is doing something you don't like, and the local government is doing something you do. Right? In the end, like I said before, I think this policy is good, but I think there's better ways to go about it. Regional counsels of government having more authority over land use seems like a great start to me. Actually, I'd be interested to know if somebody's proposed that.

tmh79 9y ago
I agree with your idea that, in an ideal world, we should promote more land use and transit decision making to metro level governments. The problem is that politics is the art of the possible, and this is the set of stakeholders we can currently wrangle to push forth a pro-housing agenda. > if you want State government overriding local government rights, you have to be prepared for the day when the State legislature is doing something you don't like, and the local government is doing something you do. Right? I do some volunteering/organizing in local politics, and there are a few "problem domains" within local government. Pretty much everything in local government boils down to "land use", "police" and "education". Additionally, smaller governments are _always_ more beholden to parochial interests than state governments are. Its kind of a "sample size" issue with local governments. As an example, lets say that 1 in 1000 people cares a lot about 1 specific issue and get involved, and that there is a universe of 10 issues in which government is looking to work on. In a city of 20k people, you would expect that each of these 10 issues would have thought leadership promulgated by only 2 people, thus the debates, policy crafting etc will be highly impacted by these 2 peoples narrow views. in a state government of 2m people, there will be more like 200 people interested in thought leadership and policy crafting on a single issue, thus the ultimate policies crafted will be less beholden to the specific biases of individuals.