4 ms·

"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

by 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.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ak217 9y ago
> 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. There is literally a developer (http://www.universalparagoncorp.com/ http://www.universalparagoncorp.com/) waiting to build a project there. They submitted a proposal with 4400 residential units, and the NIMBYs are trying to shut it down. > 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. It's already quick and painless to commute to the proposed development by Caltrain. The local lawmakers are structurally incentivized to keep development out, which is the whole reason for this legislative proposal.
- timr 9y ago
  I have no idea what the reasons are for opposing the Brisbane development, and I highly doubt you (or the state legislature) does either. It sounds like there are reasonable arguments that the city will lose on tax income [1], which is bad, and seems like something the state could actually fix, instead of attempting to engage in central planning. If there are legitimate local concerns over a development, the state shouldn't be allowed to override them just because Scott Weiner thinks there should be more development (and no, invoking "NIMBYism" isn't a counterargument). [1] "Under California’s tax system, Brisbane also earns more money if it rejects the current plan in favor of potential alternatives with more hotel rooms and space for businesses — but no homes." http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-small-city-controls-big-housing-project-20170728-story.html http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-small-city-control...
  - ak217 9y ago
    > I highly doubt you (or the state legislature) does either I do, because I've been following the issue, the Brisbane city council meetings, and the reasons that the Brisbane city council has been citing. It's not a secret. > the city will lose on tax income [1], which is bad The city is not entitled to hypothetical future tax income. > If there are legitimate local concerns over a development, the state shouldn't be allowed to override them Wishing for more tax revenue and property value appreciation is not a legitimate local concern. The city is not entitled to arbitrarily decide who can lawfully move in or build on privately owned land within its limits.
dhzjxnbzn 9y ago
For anyone familiar with the Bay Area real estate market, this is obviously wrong. Looking at recent sales, homes in Brisbane are selling at ~$600/sqft, which is easily enough to support the construction of dense housing. For comparison, that's about the same as Toronto, higher than Seattle and many other major cities. All of Brisbane is near 101, which makes it better than a lot of places in the Peninsula for commuting. Also, developers in the region are eagerly building condos and townhouses on any land they can get approval for, including areas with serious issues - eg. fifty feet from the Caltrain line but far from the nearest station. If you take a look at new construction listings you will see tons of these, and they sell great because many buyers prefer them over an eighty year old bungalow with tiny bedrooms, termites, and mold.
tmh79 9y ago
> 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. That's not true at all. Brisbane is sitting on a huge plot of undeveloped land right next to caltrain (the baylands). The developer came to them with a plan to build a lot of housing on it, and the city told them they would only accept offices on the site, that they didn't want any residential development. The developer (aka, the best party to judge flows of money and profitability) wants housing, the nimby residents say no. Pricies for crappy single family homes in brisbane are in the millions, that is clearly a sign that people want to live there. http://beta.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-small-city-controls-big-housing-project-20170728-story.html http://beta.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-small-city-contro...
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > The developer (aka, the best party to judge flows of money and profitability) wants housing, the nimby residents say no. The developer is the best party to judge the flow of money into their pockets from initial sale of the property, but not the long-term flow of costs and benefits of development, which they give fuck-all about since it doesn't effect them. Cities are concerned with balancing tax revenue vs. ongoing service costs (and, yes, with political concerns of voters like NIMBYism, but those thingd aren't entirely unrelated to each other.)

by timr 9y ago

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.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ak217 9y ago

> 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. There is literally a developer (http://www.universalparagoncorp.com/ http://www.universalparagoncorp.com/) waiting to build a project there. They submitted a proposal with 4400 residential units, and the NIMBYs are trying to shut it down. > 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. It's already quick and painless to commute to the proposed development by Caltrain. The local lawmakers are structurally incentivized to keep development out, which is the whole reason for this legislative proposal.

timr 9y ago
I have no idea what the reasons are for opposing the Brisbane development, and I highly doubt you (or the state legislature) does either. It sounds like there are reasonable arguments that the city will lose on tax income [1], which is bad, and seems like something the state could actually fix, instead of attempting to engage in central planning. If there are legitimate local concerns over a development, the state shouldn't be allowed to override them just because Scott Weiner thinks there should be more development (and no, invoking "NIMBYism" isn't a counterargument). [1] "Under California’s tax system, Brisbane also earns more money if it rejects the current plan in favor of potential alternatives with more hotel rooms and space for businesses — but no homes." http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-small-city-controls-big-housing-project-20170728-story.html http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-small-city-control...
- ak217 9y ago
  > I highly doubt you (or the state legislature) does either I do, because I've been following the issue, the Brisbane city council meetings, and the reasons that the Brisbane city council has been citing. It's not a secret. > the city will lose on tax income [1], which is bad The city is not entitled to hypothetical future tax income. > If there are legitimate local concerns over a development, the state shouldn't be allowed to override them Wishing for more tax revenue and property value appreciation is not a legitimate local concern. The city is not entitled to arbitrarily decide who can lawfully move in or build on privately owned land within its limits.

dhzjxnbzn 9y ago

For anyone familiar with the Bay Area real estate market, this is obviously wrong. Looking at recent sales, homes in Brisbane are selling at ~$600/sqft, which is easily enough to support the construction of dense housing. For comparison, that's about the same as Toronto, higher than Seattle and many other major cities. All of Brisbane is near 101, which makes it better than a lot of places in the Peninsula for commuting. Also, developers in the region are eagerly building condos and townhouses on any land they can get approval for, including areas with serious issues - eg. fifty feet from the Caltrain line but far from the nearest station. If you take a look at new construction listings you will see tons of these, and they sell great because many buyers prefer them over an eighty year old bungalow with tiny bedrooms, termites, and mold.

tmh79 9y ago

> 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. That's not true at all. Brisbane is sitting on a huge plot of undeveloped land right next to caltrain (the baylands). The developer came to them with a plan to build a lot of housing on it, and the city told them they would only accept offices on the site, that they didn't want any residential development. The developer (aka, the best party to judge flows of money and profitability) wants housing, the nimby residents say no. Pricies for crappy single family homes in brisbane are in the millions, that is clearly a sign that people want to live there. http://beta.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-small-city-controls-big-housing-project-20170728-story.html http://beta.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-small-city-contro...

dragonwriter 9y ago
> The developer (aka, the best party to judge flows of money and profitability) wants housing, the nimby residents say no. The developer is the best party to judge the flow of money into their pockets from initial sale of the property, but not the long-term flow of costs and benefits of development, which they give fuck-all about since it doesn't effect them. Cities are concerned with balancing tax revenue vs. ongoing service costs (and, yes, with political concerns of voters like NIMBYism, but those thingd aren't entirely unrelated to each other.)