4 ms·

Actually just removing all public comment would be more impactful than anything. In nearly every jurisdiction, including places like SF (edit: Bay Area not only

Actually just removing all public comment would be more impactful than anything. In nearly every jurisdiction, including places like SF (edit: Bay Area not only SF proper), there is ample housing theoretically permitted under current zoning. The problem is we don’t have rule of law in cities, we have fickle and subjective rule by angry mob. Whether a building meets zoning codes should be a straightforward yes or no question that results in a fairly quick turnaround for a building permit, or a specific list of defects from the code and remedies that would bring the project into compliance.

Seattle3503 5y ago
> Actually just removing all public comment would be more impactful than anything. In nearly every jurisdiction, including places like SF, there is ample housing theoretically permitted under current zoning. Is there a source for this?
- jeffbee 5y ago
  I doubt it, because the nameplate capacity of San Francisco after its 1970s downzoning was very close to its actual size now. Same for Los Angeles, which was down-zoned from 10 million to 4 million in the 1970s. https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/programs/housing/housing-supply/zoning/ https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/programs/housing/housing-supply/z...
- burlesona 5y ago
  Sorry, let me clarify: the SF _Bay Area_ has a lot more housing theoretically allowed within existing zoning. But I’ll admit, in the case of the Bay Area, it’s such a desirable place to live that if they build a million homes tomorrow I’m not sure it would satisfy demand, though I do think that would be enough to move us down the price curve a bit.
thereisnospork 5y ago
This. If a proposed building meets the zoning requirements, it should be able to be built, full stop. To build anything you have to kowtow to the local building commission and the extortion of local groups[0]. Simply decreeing that it is a property owner's right to 'build a 5 story apartment building on a lot zoned for 5 story apartment buildings[1]' would do so much to alleviate housing pressure. [0]Invariably environmental studies will be insufficient, traffic studies will be insufficient, the color of the neighborhood will be disrupted, gentrification!, etc. [1]Consistent with rules and codes clearly defined, preferentially with affirmative defense against frivolous legal action.

Seattle3503 5y ago

> Actually just removing all public comment would be more impactful than anything. In nearly every jurisdiction, including places like SF, there is ample housing theoretically permitted under current zoning. Is there a source for this?

jeffbee 5y ago
I doubt it, because the nameplate capacity of San Francisco after its 1970s downzoning was very close to its actual size now. Same for Los Angeles, which was down-zoned from 10 million to 4 million in the 1970s. https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/programs/housing/housing-supply/zoning/ https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/programs/housing/housing-supply/z...
burlesona 5y ago
Sorry, let me clarify: the SF _Bay Area_ has a lot more housing theoretically allowed within existing zoning. But I’ll admit, in the case of the Bay Area, it’s such a desirable place to live that if they build a million homes tomorrow I’m not sure it would satisfy demand, though I do think that would be enough to move us down the price curve a bit.

thereisnospork 5y ago

This. If a proposed building meets the zoning requirements, it should be able to be built, full stop. To build anything you have to kowtow to the local building commission and the extortion of local groups[0]. Simply decreeing that it is a property owner's right to 'build a 5 story apartment building on a lot zoned for 5 story apartment buildings[1]' would do so much to alleviate housing pressure. [0]Invariably environmental studies will be insufficient, traffic studies will be insufficient, the color of the neighborhood will be disrupted, gentrification!, etc. [1]Consistent with rules and codes clearly defined, preferentially with affirmative defense against frivolous legal action.