3 ms·

If this is true then I think the Bay will need to let go of it's ideas towards rezoning. Deregulatory zoning adjustments just won't be able to stimulate this le

If this is true then I think the Bay will need to let go of it's ideas towards rezoning. Deregulatory zoning adjustments just won't be able to stimulate this level of building. Why not just build out and do greenfield development but put some mandatory density requirements in place for new building?

DataWorker 8y ago
If you think this is doable you haven’t thought hard enough. What of all the home owners? Imminent domain and reclaim the peninsula?
- frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
  I think it's doable, you just have to keep going a bit. Is Tyler Cowen right, then? “Basically SF is ed?” No. San Francisco could be just fine. The thing about San Francisco is that while greenfields have been exhausted in the city, the San Francisco Bay Area is largely undeveloped. We are always arguing over San Francisco, or Palo Alto (ick). Outside of the 47 square miles of San Francisco proper are almost 3200 square miles in San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa counties. (I’ll leave out the hoity-toity North Bay counties — Marin, Sonoma, Napa — but if it’s Latin-America-style land reform you want, the vines there are ripe for revolution!) Nobody wants new suburban sprawl, thank goodness. But dense development is not sprawl, even when it is greenfield development. http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/6487.html http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/6487.html
conanbatt 8y ago
I personally believe SF is just f'ed. Its not a problem of choosing a solution, its a political problem. It would require politically unfeasble solutions. Removing rent control, changing sales taxes to land value taxes, reducing superfluous city government spending, etc. San francisco will not change without a back-breaking situation: tech companies moving away, homelessness getting to untenable levels, median workers leaving the city, etc. Its already happening, but not hard enough to curb the expected profits of the last generation of landowners.
mywittyname 8y ago
I think it's time for eminent domain. Local landowners are using their wealth and political influence to deprive others of shelter for personal profit. The federal government forcing the sale of land for high-density development would probably be enough to spook landowners into seeing reason.
- toomuchgov 8y ago
  F*ck you. Let me take your personal property and redistribute it as I see fit.
- refurb 8y ago
  That makes no sense at all. It's gov't policies that created the high prices. So the gov't then turns around and says "we're taking your property because the price is too high"?
pkaye 8y ago
All the new construction I see in the south bay area are 3-4 story townhouses, condos and apartments. However they are still going to be expensive given the demand. However the bigger problem is transportation. The roads are getting worse during peak rush hour and I don't see much room to improve it further. I've been a long time resident of the bay area and a lot of neighbors are complaining of the traffic leaking into the surface streets to shortcut the packed freeways. Some are voicing complaints to protest additional housing until the transportation is improved.

DataWorker 8y ago

If you think this is doable you haven’t thought hard enough. What of all the home owners? Imminent domain and reclaim the peninsula?

frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
I think it's doable, you just have to keep going a bit. Is Tyler Cowen right, then? “Basically SF is ed?” No. San Francisco could be just fine. The thing about San Francisco is that while greenfields have been exhausted in the city, the San Francisco Bay Area is largely undeveloped. We are always arguing over San Francisco, or Palo Alto (ick). Outside of the 47 square miles of San Francisco proper are almost 3200 square miles in San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa counties. (I’ll leave out the hoity-toity North Bay counties — Marin, Sonoma, Napa — but if it’s Latin-America-style land reform you want, the vines there are ripe for revolution!) Nobody wants new suburban sprawl, thank goodness. But dense development is not sprawl, even when it is greenfield development. http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/6487.html http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/6487.html

conanbatt 8y ago

I personally believe SF is just f'ed. Its not a problem of choosing a solution, its a political problem. It would require politically unfeasble solutions. Removing rent control, changing sales taxes to land value taxes, reducing superfluous city government spending, etc. San francisco will not change without a back-breaking situation: tech companies moving away, homelessness getting to untenable levels, median workers leaving the city, etc. Its already happening, but not hard enough to curb the expected profits of the last generation of landowners.

mywittyname 8y ago

I think it's time for eminent domain. Local landowners are using their wealth and political influence to deprive others of shelter for personal profit. The federal government forcing the sale of land for high-density development would probably be enough to spook landowners into seeing reason.

toomuchgov 8y ago
F*ck you. Let me take your personal property and redistribute it as I see fit.
refurb 8y ago
That makes no sense at all. It's gov't policies that created the high prices. So the gov't then turns around and says "we're taking your property because the price is too high"?

pkaye 8y ago

All the new construction I see in the south bay area are 3-4 story townhouses, condos and apartments. However they are still going to be expensive given the demand. However the bigger problem is transportation. The roads are getting worse during peak rush hour and I don't see much room to improve it further. I've been a long time resident of the bay area and a lot of neighbors are complaining of the traffic leaking into the surface streets to shortcut the packed freeways. Some are voicing complaints to protest additional housing until the transportation is improved.