3 ms·

> On Aug. 13, Carson proposed requiring that cities that receive federal housing grants reduce their use of exclusionary zoning. Question: is there anything st

by joecot 8y ago

> On Aug. 13, Carson proposed requiring that cities that receive federal housing grants reduce their use of exclusionary zoning. Question: is there anything stopping these cities from just deciding to decline federal housing grants? The biggest culprit in this issue is Silicon Valley. Do they really need Federal housing grants to make people want to move there? The issue is too much demand already. If Carson forces the issue, I can absolutely see San Francisco's city leadership just declining grants instead of changing their zoning. That might be enough to get some people voted out, but it'll take a while.

grandmczeb 8y ago
HUD grants are a major source of funding for things like fighting homelessness. The city could decline them, but they would have to make up the difference.
- joecot 8y ago
  Would they though? Are cities required to make up the difference? Problem: cities are artificially keeping housing prices up, pushing lower income people out in favor of the upper class. The housing market is forcing lower income people out of cities. Solution: tell cities they have to stop artificially keeping housing prices up, or the federal government will stop subsidizing low income housing and subsidized loans. If the goal is to gentrify your city and keep prices high, how is that a real threat? That solution is only a threat if you assume these cities aren't paying attention to what's happening at all, and I don't think San Francisco's leaders are that dim.
  - grandmczeb 8y ago
    There’s a pretty clear political mandate in SF to provide things like healthcare and housing for the homeless, part of which is paid for by HUD. If a large chunk of that budget went away, I doubt voters would want to cut services, so the city would have to make it up themselves.
  - bluGill 8y ago
    It isn't just about your city. If the working poor find it advantageous to live your city for one half way across the state that is less people to work the lower income jobs - now it is more expensive to get the toilets cleaned in the office. This raises your cost of living, and lowers it in the other city. Of course how this all works out is very complex and messy and will take dozens of years before we see anything significant.
    - joecot 8y ago
      San Francisco has already found "ways" to deal with many of those issues. They can't afford wait staff anymore, so restaurants are switching to counter service[1]. A law firm started housing their lawyers in Texas and flying them in because it was cheaper than housing there [2]. Delivery drivers can't afford to work there, so they experimented with having robots do it instead [3]. It's been tremendously clear that San Francisco has become an experiment in seeing if you can still run a city while pushing out all the poor people. Its been worker infrastructure has been coming apart at the seams for years now and the city's leadership has made little attempt towards fixing it -- instead entrepreneurs are just trying to find ways to work around it. I have little confidence that threatening to pull federal housing funding will dissuade the city from their path. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17394551 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17394551 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15874565 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15874565 3. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15880100 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15880100
- sjg007 8y ago
  The cities probably won't decline. They probably want an external reason to change the zoning laws vs doing it themselves. They might all be voted out though in the next election by pissed off homeowners... unless there are enough pro development voters in the city to offset them. My guess is that if this doesn't work then the Feds will tie removing exclusionary zoning to some other funding source. The question will be will it go to the Supreme court.
  - joecot 8y ago
    I could see cities going one way or the other. * Some cities might readily accept the leverage to change policy they weren't happy with. * Some cities might decline the federal grants, under threat from home owners. * Some cities might decline the federal grants, because pricing the lower class out was the entire point all along. Maybe a later volley will force more hands, but it seems like this policy will blow up in HUD's faces.
dionidium 8y ago
> The issue is too much demand already. Only those who already live there think there's too much demand. Everybody else on the planet recognizes that there's not enough supply.

by joecot 8y ago

grandmczeb 8y ago

HUD grants are a major source of funding for things like fighting homelessness. The city could decline them, but they would have to make up the difference.

joecot 8y ago
Would they though? Are cities required to make up the difference? Problem: cities are artificially keeping housing prices up, pushing lower income people out in favor of the upper class. The housing market is forcing lower income people out of cities. Solution: tell cities they have to stop artificially keeping housing prices up, or the federal government will stop subsidizing low income housing and subsidized loans. If the goal is to gentrify your city and keep prices high, how is that a real threat? That solution is only a threat if you assume these cities aren't paying attention to what's happening at all, and I don't think San Francisco's leaders are that dim.
- grandmczeb 8y ago
  There’s a pretty clear political mandate in SF to provide things like healthcare and housing for the homeless, part of which is paid for by HUD. If a large chunk of that budget went away, I doubt voters would want to cut services, so the city would have to make it up themselves.
- bluGill 8y ago
  It isn't just about your city. If the working poor find it advantageous to live your city for one half way across the state that is less people to work the lower income jobs - now it is more expensive to get the toilets cleaned in the office. This raises your cost of living, and lowers it in the other city. Of course how this all works out is very complex and messy and will take dozens of years before we see anything significant.
  - joecot 8y ago
    San Francisco has already found "ways" to deal with many of those issues. They can't afford wait staff anymore, so restaurants are switching to counter service[1]. A law firm started housing their lawyers in Texas and flying them in because it was cheaper than housing there [2]. Delivery drivers can't afford to work there, so they experimented with having robots do it instead [3]. It's been tremendously clear that San Francisco has become an experiment in seeing if you can still run a city while pushing out all the poor people. Its been worker infrastructure has been coming apart at the seams for years now and the city's leadership has made little attempt towards fixing it -- instead entrepreneurs are just trying to find ways to work around it. I have little confidence that threatening to pull federal housing funding will dissuade the city from their path. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17394551 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17394551 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15874565 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15874565 3. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15880100 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15880100
sjg007 8y ago
The cities probably won't decline. They probably want an external reason to change the zoning laws vs doing it themselves. They might all be voted out though in the next election by pissed off homeowners... unless there are enough pro development voters in the city to offset them. My guess is that if this doesn't work then the Feds will tie removing exclusionary zoning to some other funding source. The question will be will it go to the Supreme court.
- joecot 8y ago
  I could see cities going one way or the other. * Some cities might readily accept the leverage to change policy they weren't happy with. * Some cities might decline the federal grants, under threat from home owners. * Some cities might decline the federal grants, because pricing the lower class out was the entire point all along. Maybe a later volley will force more hands, but it seems like this policy will blow up in HUD's faces.

dionidium 8y ago

> The issue is too much demand already. Only those who already live there think there's too much demand. Everybody else on the planet recognizes that there's not enough supply.