4 ms·

Why don’t they don’t let people build housing? Voters in the city.

refurb 8y ago
While that's true, they don't have to bend over backwards for those voters. SF supervisors have a lot of leniency in clearing out the construction approval backlog.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  It seems...foolish to not bend over backwards for those who control your destiny through democratic actions. Property owners have the most to lose, and therefore the most incentive to keep their neighborhood as-is. I find it hard to fault them for their actions (especially when you're investing seven figures into your home's purchase). The core problem is that SF property owners value their homes, communities, and property values over the inclusion of additional residents, and that won't change without stripping this constituency of their property and voting rights (which is of course untenable in a functioning democracy).
  - munk-a 8y ago
    SF really is in a situation where a regional development council needs to come in and clear out a lot of the low-density housing, but since that's unlikely to happen this story makes me quite happy.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - dvtrn 8y ago
      Pardon my snark, but this sounds like eminent domain wearing a velvet glove.
      - haloux 8y ago
        Dude that’s eminent domain _prima facie_.
        dvtrn 8y ago
        Look I had to be sure, I've never seen anyone actually suggest eminent domain so casually before. The only times I've seen it have been in grainy, fuzzy news reports from the 80's.
        CPLX 8y ago
        You’re kidding right? Eminent domain is used daily in the US and around the world. It would literally be impossible to build and maintain a transportation network without it.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        dvtrn 8y ago
        Okay but we're talking about razing houses and replacing it not with infrastructure and transportation networks but with more housing in a state with already a quarter of the nation's homeless population. I have so many questions about what happens in that regional development council hypothetical with astronomically high housing prices and homelessness: - Do you play benevolent city planner and let current residents in these low density zones stay, redevelop around them? This is already happening without much help needed from the city, hastening that seems to be a good way to add to the homeless population resulting from displaced families fleeing the inevitable raise in property value and therefore taxes, no? - Do you play well meaning but forward marching city planner who has to watch families move out of their city acquired land and homes, sure probably with a check in hand and a pat on the back hoping they make it-when realistically the market probably, very likely (A) don't have room for them or (B) probably out of their financial range to even relocate to nearby neighborhoods? I just don't see a path forward here for SF using eminent domain that doesn't come with some very painful outcomes that probably exacerbate the very problem it would intend to solve. An unforced error. Perhaps I'm overthinking the conceit here, but it's an experience I've lived through, so maybe that explains why my eyebrow immediately shot up.
madeuptempacct 8y ago
I actually understand it. Ironically, a San Francisco resident Uber driver explained it to me. She said something like "People like the small city feel without over-population, people like the view from almost anywhere in the city - we don't want to to be another new your. And while the skeptic in me sees "Property owners don't want prices to go down," I also see the other side now. San Fran wouldn't be San Fran even if we dug deep to have a ton of housing without ruining the view. There is something to be said for not seeing a single police car until going South at night (or getting pulled over for going South on some street starting with an S "after 9"). There is also something to be said for living around people who can afford to live there (I can't, so don't take this as some elitist techie failing to check his privilige).
- pj_mukh 8y ago
  After moving here, I see this point too. However, there's very clearly parts of the city that could look like Taipei and the city still wouldn't lose its look at feel. Feel free to stick all of us Techies in Gigantic high-rises in Dogpatch and Mission-bay to bring the housing costs down everywhere else (and stop playing these band-aid games with Airbnb)
- taurath 8y ago
  Right - those advocating for more housing have almost nothing to offer the people already locked in. This to me is the crux of the problem.

While that's true, they don't have to bend over backwards for those voters. SF supervisors have a lot of leniency in clearing out the construction approval backlog.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
It seems...foolish to not bend over backwards for those who control your destiny through democratic actions. Property owners have the most to lose, and therefore the most incentive to keep their neighborhood as-is. I find it hard to fault them for their actions (especially when you're investing seven figures into your home's purchase). The core problem is that SF property owners value their homes, communities, and property values over the inclusion of additional residents, and that won't change without stripping this constituency of their property and voting rights (which is of course untenable in a functioning democracy).
- munk-a 8y ago
  SF really is in a situation where a regional development council needs to come in and clear out a lot of the low-density housing, but since that's unlikely to happen this story makes me quite happy.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - dvtrn 8y ago
    Pardon my snark, but this sounds like eminent domain wearing a velvet glove.
    - haloux 8y ago
      Dude that’s eminent domain _prima facie_.
      - dvtrn 8y ago
        Look I had to be sure, I've never seen anyone actually suggest eminent domain so casually before. The only times I've seen it have been in grainy, fuzzy news reports from the 80's.
        CPLX 8y ago
        You’re kidding right? Eminent domain is used daily in the US and around the world. It would literally be impossible to build and maintain a transportation network without it.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        dvtrn 8y ago
        Okay but we're talking about razing houses and replacing it not with infrastructure and transportation networks but with more housing in a state with already a quarter of the nation's homeless population. I have so many questions about what happens in that regional development council hypothetical with astronomically high housing prices and homelessness: - Do you play benevolent city planner and let current residents in these low density zones stay, redevelop around them? This is already happening without much help needed from the city, hastening that seems to be a good way to add to the homeless population resulting from displaced families fleeing the inevitable raise in property value and therefore taxes, no? - Do you play well meaning but forward marching city planner who has to watch families move out of their city acquired land and homes, sure probably with a check in hand and a pat on the back hoping they make it-when realistically the market probably, very likely (A) don't have room for them or (B) probably out of their financial range to even relocate to nearby neighborhoods? I just don't see a path forward here for SF using eminent domain that doesn't come with some very painful outcomes that probably exacerbate the very problem it would intend to solve. An unforced error. Perhaps I'm overthinking the conceit here, but it's an experience I've lived through, so maybe that explains why my eyebrow immediately shot up.

madeuptempacct 8y ago

I actually understand it. Ironically, a San Francisco resident Uber driver explained it to me. She said something like "People like the small city feel without over-population, people like the view from almost anywhere in the city - we don't want to to be another new your. And while the skeptic in me sees "Property owners don't want prices to go down," I also see the other side now. San Fran wouldn't be San Fran even if we dug deep to have a ton of housing without ruining the view. There is something to be said for not seeing a single police car until going South at night (or getting pulled over for going South on some street starting with an S "after 9"). There is also something to be said for living around people who can afford to live there (I can't, so don't take this as some elitist techie failing to check his privilige).

pj_mukh 8y ago
After moving here, I see this point too. However, there's very clearly parts of the city that could look like Taipei and the city still wouldn't lose its look at feel. Feel free to stick all of us Techies in Gigantic high-rises in Dogpatch and Mission-bay to bring the housing costs down everywhere else (and stop playing these band-aid games with Airbnb)
taurath 8y ago
Right - those advocating for more housing have almost nothing to offer the people already locked in. This to me is the crux of the problem.