5 ms·

That is the goal, to not encroach on the nature that runs right up against the city. See the save the bay campaigns of the 70s and 80s.

by dmead 8y ago

BurningFrog 8y ago
The goal is to keep housing prices high and rising. The pretext is to not encroach on the nature.
- longerthoughts 8y ago
  Depends on who you're talking about. This is not universally true.
  - davidw 8y ago
    Here's the Sierra Club fighting to preserve... a historic garage. https://www.thebaycitybeacon.com/politics/the-sierra-club-fights-to-save-a-parking-garage/article_93ff9084-3be7-11e7-a3a8-17f11f24db6e.html https://www.thebaycitybeacon.com/politics/the-sierra-club-fi... Not wanting to pave over some of the green spaces sounds laudable, but the same people fight against growing 'in' and 'up', which is the only thing you can do to add to supply if you won't go out.
    - longerthoughts 8y ago
      I'm aware of that particular case and think it's certainly representative of some peoples' goals in the area but it's not universal. I think it's helpful to shine a light on things like this. The parent comment I was replying to, however, just assigns a view to a grand, ambiguous They and implies that anybody arguing for preservation has ulterior motives. Not helpful.
    - CalRobert 8y ago
      Unfortunately this article gives me an HTTP 451 (I'm GDPR-walled) It's easy to circumvent, but perhaps we shouldn't support sites that are so hostile to their users they block places with sane data protection laws.
      - hackerman12345 8y ago
        I think you're in the minority with that view of GDPR being well-implemented judging by previous threads, and secondly that website (news org) is really is for/about a specific city and it's not really relevant if they are required to block some foreigners halfway across the world because of their foreign laws. " it will have come as no surprise when Romanian authorities attempted to use the GDPR’s wide powers to threaten journalists investigating corruption in the country. " https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/12/year-gdpr-2018s-most-famous-privacy-regulation-review https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/12/year-gdpr-2018s-most-f...
- crdoconnor 8y ago
  There are other ways to dehoardify prime land that don't require tearing up nature. Raising property taxes (i.e. shredding prop 13) would help. The NIMBYs would be less motivated if rising land values were captured by taxes rather than winners of the homeowner lottery (and who likes SF NIMBYs?) A lot of people sitting on inefficiently used land would also be driven to sell (and their bungalow could be demolished and replaced with apartments, increasing supply). Also more tax income.
  - longerthoughts 8y ago
    >A lot of people sitting on inefficiently used land would also be driven to sell (and their bungalow could be demolished and replaced with apartments, increasing supply). One problem with this is that a lot of land owners have been in the city for decades and their property tax rates are protected under Prop 13 [0]. Basically their tax rates get adjusted for inflation but aren't reassessed unless ownership changes or there's significant construction. Raising tax rates won't touch these people. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13
    - crdoconnor 8y ago
      Hence why I said "i.e. shredding prop 13" and why my other comment in the thread said "blame the Howard Jarvis taxpayers foundation".
      - longerthoughts 8y ago
        Ah, missed that in your comment. I don't imagine you could get enough support to drop it altogether but I wonder if they could get exceptions passed in counties that could benefit the most. I believe Prop 13 already has a few nuances for specific counties.
        ak217 8y ago
        > I don't imagine you could get enough support to drop it altogether Support is rising quickly. > Prop 13 already has a few nuances for specific counties. It does not.

That is the goal, to not encroach on the nature that runs right up against the city. See the save the bay campaigns of the 70s and 80s.

by dmead 8y ago

That is the goal, to not encroach on the nature that runs right up against the city. See the save the bay campaigns of the 70s and 80s.

BurningFrog 8y ago

The goal is to keep housing prices high and rising. The pretext is to not encroach on the nature.

longerthoughts 8y ago
Depends on who you're talking about. This is not universally true.
- davidw 8y ago
  Here's the Sierra Club fighting to preserve... a historic garage. https://www.thebaycitybeacon.com/politics/the-sierra-club-fights-to-save-a-parking-garage/article_93ff9084-3be7-11e7-a3a8-17f11f24db6e.html https://www.thebaycitybeacon.com/politics/the-sierra-club-fi... Not wanting to pave over some of the green spaces sounds laudable, but the same people fight against growing 'in' and 'up', which is the only thing you can do to add to supply if you won't go out.
  - longerthoughts 8y ago
    I'm aware of that particular case and think it's certainly representative of some peoples' goals in the area but it's not universal. I think it's helpful to shine a light on things like this. The parent comment I was replying to, however, just assigns a view to a grand, ambiguous They and implies that anybody arguing for preservation has ulterior motives. Not helpful.
  - CalRobert 8y ago
    Unfortunately this article gives me an HTTP 451 (I'm GDPR-walled) It's easy to circumvent, but perhaps we shouldn't support sites that are so hostile to their users they block places with sane data protection laws.
    - hackerman12345 8y ago
      I think you're in the minority with that view of GDPR being well-implemented judging by previous threads, and secondly that website (news org) is really is for/about a specific city and it's not really relevant if they are required to block some foreigners halfway across the world because of their foreign laws. " it will have come as no surprise when Romanian authorities attempted to use the GDPR’s wide powers to threaten journalists investigating corruption in the country. " https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/12/year-gdpr-2018s-most-famous-privacy-regulation-review https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/12/year-gdpr-2018s-most-f...
crdoconnor 8y ago
There are other ways to dehoardify prime land that don't require tearing up nature. Raising property taxes (i.e. shredding prop 13) would help. The NIMBYs would be less motivated if rising land values were captured by taxes rather than winners of the homeowner lottery (and who likes SF NIMBYs?) A lot of people sitting on inefficiently used land would also be driven to sell (and their bungalow could be demolished and replaced with apartments, increasing supply). Also more tax income.
- longerthoughts 8y ago
  >A lot of people sitting on inefficiently used land would also be driven to sell (and their bungalow could be demolished and replaced with apartments, increasing supply). One problem with this is that a lot of land owners have been in the city for decades and their property tax rates are protected under Prop 13 [0]. Basically their tax rates get adjusted for inflation but aren't reassessed unless ownership changes or there's significant construction. Raising tax rates won't touch these people. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13
  - crdoconnor 8y ago
    Hence why I said "i.e. shredding prop 13" and why my other comment in the thread said "blame the Howard Jarvis taxpayers foundation".
    - longerthoughts 8y ago
      Ah, missed that in your comment. I don't imagine you could get enough support to drop it altogether but I wonder if they could get exceptions passed in counties that could benefit the most. I believe Prop 13 already has a few nuances for specific counties.
      - ak217 8y ago
        > I don't imagine you could get enough support to drop it altogether Support is rising quickly. > Prop 13 already has a few nuances for specific counties. It does not.