3 ms·

Right, you support it on the other side of the neighborhood. You support in the case where you get all of the benefits and bear none of the costs. I do too. But

Right, you support it on the other side of the neighborhood. You support in the case where you get all of the benefits and bear none of the costs. I do too. But I'm not so obtuse that I'm going to pretend that I'm part of the some kind of altruistic housing movement.

mercutio2 8y ago
You keep expressing this false dichotomy up and down the thread. Please engage with charity. The argument being made is that the law shouldn’t forbid, or through burueacratic heel dragging prevent, my neighbor from selling to a developer to build a tall building next to me. You said, “The NIMBY’s and YIMBY’s are the same.” In this regard, dougmccune appears to very much disagree, and you’re just dismissing his argument that he’d be happy to have developers build next to him, by claiming that because he doesn’t plan on selling his house, he’s just being a NIMBY. That is very much not where the locus of the argument is. No one is proposing that we eminent domain the whole of Nob Hill, and force everyone to move who doesn’t have any intention of selling.
- themagician 8y ago
  The law doesn't forbid you from selling to a developer. It's not about personal property and who you can sell to. You can sell to whoever you like. Local planning code determines what can and can't be done, not who you can sell to. This is true everywhere. And I actually don't think eminent domain (over time) is a terrible idea. Make the area around Golden Gate Park look like Central Park and your housing problem is solved.
  - Decade 8y ago
    The law doesn’t forbid you from selling to a developer, but the law does forbid the developer from turning a single-unit house into an apartment. Or even a duplex, a lot of the time. Just look at the zoning maps. Around Golden Gate Park, the height limit is 40 feet, and a lot of it is single-family zoning. http://sf-planning.org/zoning-maps http://sf-planning.org/zoning-maps A lot of the time, it is more practical to take that single-family house and turn it into a fancy single-family house. Satisfying gentrification. https://sf.curbed.com/2018/4/25/17277290/glen-park-home-expensive-over-asking-price https://sf.curbed.com/2018/4/25/17277290/glen-park-home-expe...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
dougmccune 8y ago
I literally said I support rezoning my block and support someone building a 4-6 story building next to my house.
danans 8y ago
> Right, you support it on the other side of the neighborhood. He didn't say that at all. In fact, he said if his neighbor decided to build higher density he wouldn't oppose it.
dnr 8y ago
You keep saying there is no difference, but there is a very simple and obvious difference: the YIMBY position supports upzoning everywhere, including where they live. The NIMBY position does not support that. It's about changing zoning to allow for more density, not about any particular new building in any particular location. Saying that one has to demolish their own home before they can support upzoning is nonsensical. I live in the Mission in a three story building and would be fine with someone building a six story building next to or behind mine.

mercutio2 8y ago

You keep expressing this false dichotomy up and down the thread. Please engage with charity. The argument being made is that the law shouldn’t forbid, or through burueacratic heel dragging prevent, my neighbor from selling to a developer to build a tall building next to me. You said, “The NIMBY’s and YIMBY’s are the same.” In this regard, dougmccune appears to very much disagree, and you’re just dismissing his argument that he’d be happy to have developers build next to him, by claiming that because he doesn’t plan on selling his house, he’s just being a NIMBY. That is very much not where the locus of the argument is. No one is proposing that we eminent domain the whole of Nob Hill, and force everyone to move who doesn’t have any intention of selling.

themagician 8y ago
The law doesn't forbid you from selling to a developer. It's not about personal property and who you can sell to. You can sell to whoever you like. Local planning code determines what can and can't be done, not who you can sell to. This is true everywhere. And I actually don't think eminent domain (over time) is a terrible idea. Make the area around Golden Gate Park look like Central Park and your housing problem is solved.
- Decade 8y ago
  The law doesn’t forbid you from selling to a developer, but the law does forbid the developer from turning a single-unit house into an apartment. Or even a duplex, a lot of the time. Just look at the zoning maps. Around Golden Gate Park, the height limit is 40 feet, and a lot of it is single-family zoning. http://sf-planning.org/zoning-maps http://sf-planning.org/zoning-maps A lot of the time, it is more practical to take that single-family house and turn it into a fancy single-family house. Satisfying gentrification. https://sf.curbed.com/2018/4/25/17277290/glen-park-home-expensive-over-asking-price https://sf.curbed.com/2018/4/25/17277290/glen-park-home-expe...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

dougmccune 8y ago

I literally said I support rezoning my block and support someone building a 4-6 story building next to my house.

danans 8y ago

> Right, you support it on the other side of the neighborhood. He didn't say that at all. In fact, he said if his neighbor decided to build higher density he wouldn't oppose it.

dnr 8y ago

You keep saying there is no difference, but there is a very simple and obvious difference: the YIMBY position supports upzoning everywhere, including where they live. The NIMBY position does not support that. It's about changing zoning to allow for more density, not about any particular new building in any particular location. Saying that one has to demolish their own home before they can support upzoning is nonsensical. I live in the Mission in a three story building and would be fine with someone building a six story building next to or behind mine.