3 ms·
"Which one is more important, keeping the "charm" of houses and neighborhoods where you cannot afford to live anyway, or keeping those 12 your closest childhood
by rsync 8y ago
"Which one is more important, keeping the "charm" of houses and neighborhoods where you cannot afford to live anyway, or keeping those 12 your closest childhood friends, even if that means allowing to build apartment buildings for them to live in? You choose."
It is worth noting that both of those are reasonable, acceptable democratic outcomes.
I personally would like to see much more in-fill and height in a lot of the city of San Francisco - but I am dismayed when I hear other such proponents of this idea rejecting the results of democratic processes as illegitimate.
There is a serious movement underway in California to remove local control of housing/zoning/development and enact statewide, top down controls and incentives - simply because democratic processes did not produce "acceptable" results.
The common retort is that local councils and county boards and neighborhood associations - local control - is by nature undemocratic (something something only old retired people have time to go to county board hearings something something) but I would like to point out that those very same people who hope to remove local controls in favor of top-down, region-wide planning, were very much in favor of legalizing marijuana (as I was) and instituting local control at the expense of the (federal) top-down, region-wide planning.
Democracy for thee, but not for me ...
- yaacov 8y agoVery few people are pro- or anti- local control in general. People have specific policy goals, and achieve those goals at the level (local, state, federal) where they’re most feasible. There’s no hypocrisy there.
- rsync 8y agoI encourage you to read the local progressive press in San Francisco - for instance, the 48 hills blog[1]. There is a serious and growing sentiment that removing local housing authority and controls is the proper solution to these problems. In fact, there are governmental working bodies that are moving in this direction - Plan Bay Area comes to mind, as well as Governor Newsome's proposed transportation funding mechanism[2]. Or just read the literature from the Yimby party in SF[3] - see part VI, bullet #2 ... [1] https://48hills.org/ https://48hills.org/ [2] https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/01/gavin-newsom-housing-reform-transportation-budget-homeless/580192/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/01/gavin-newsom-... [3] https://yimbyaction.org/sf/platform/ https://yimbyaction.org/sf/platform/
- asdfasgasdgasdg 8y agoKilling all left-handed people is also a possible valid outcome of a democratic process. That wouldn't make it acceptable. You can't wave the democracy wand over a bad outcome and make it immune from criticism.
- toasterlovin 8y agoThe whole situation is complicated. While I'm sympathetic to people who want the place they've lived in for 30 years to remain the same, there's already a federally mandated (and, thus, undemocratic) thing which ensures that change will happen: unrestricted internal migration. So the question is not about whether change will happen, it's just a matter of whether change comes in the form of increasing costs or increasing density.