3 ms·
"annexation of public land that belongs to the taxpayers" It's worth considering why people are more sympathetic to: A) Restaurant owners who, under San Franc
by rahimnathwani 5y ago
"annexation of public land that belongs to the taxpayers"
It's worth considering why people are more sympathetic to:
A) Restaurant owners who, under San Francisco's 'Shared Spaces' scheme, have been given the right to construct outdoor dining spaces on public land (i) without any payment for use of the land, and (ii) with the right to exclude/eject members of the public from that land, unless they pay the restaurant.
Than:
B) People who would otherwise be homeless living on public land.
- Google234 5y agoWell A is mostly because the government has disallowed them to use the indoor space thst they own. Seems like a fair trade to meZ
- rahimnathwani 5y agoIf that were the reason, then: 1. The scheme would be open to all affected businesses (including offices) and not just restaurants. 2. There SF govt would not be trying to make the scheme permanent.
- gruez 5y agoBecause the former is sanctioned and the latter isn't. Being sanctioned means it went through an approval process where the residents have representation and can reject the proposal. If restaurants decided to unilaterally annex roads for their own private use they'd get in trouble as well.
- hedora 5y agoThis doesn’t have much to do with who owns the land. California won’t allow affordable housing to be built anywhere in the Bay Area. The result is that you get buildings that somehow cost 4-5x more to build than they would elsewhere (even adjusting for seismic costs) and you get dangerous squatter villages, but you get nothing in between.