4 ms·

I recently discovered the very very wealthy neighborhood of SF in the north west corner of the city and boy, that sure is a low density use and I would LOVE to

I recently discovered the very very wealthy neighborhood of SF in the north west corner of the city and boy, that sure is a low density use and I would LOVE to see that area turned in to high density affordable housing. But then, those people must control the city so it doesn’t seem like that would ever happen. And hey, I honestly want all low density parts of the city densified. But it’s striking how big those houses are in that neighborhood and how low density it must be. EDIT: I think what bothers me about this neighborhood is what it represents. While so many people in the city are struggling to get by, these people have these huge homes with elaborate finishing work, huge gardens, fountains, the works. It feels gratuitous to me. And if you know anything about the history of red lining in this country, this would have been one of those areas with racial covenants in the deeds to their homes. All the power brokers of the city past and present must have lived here, and all manner of political maneuvering and disenfranchisement would have come from this place. I’d rather see it torn down, and used to build affordable housing for those in need. I just can’t find myself sympathizing with people who feel they need this much for themselves while so many people struggle for the basic necessities. I wouldn’t mind if no one had that. It doesn’t seem justified to me. EDIT2: Someone asked me what neighborhood so I looked on google maps (it's Sea Cliff) and was reminded that they also have THEIR OWN GOLF COURSE adjacent to this neighborhood. Yikes.

huevosabio 4y ago
I honestly don't necessarily want any particular area to be densified. What I want is: 1. Anyone be able to build any type of housing anywhere. 2. Really steep land value taxes I have no issue with a clique of hyper reach folk living in a low density neighborhood, as long as any of them is be able to defect and build a tower if they feel like it _and_ they all pay their LVT.
- zhoujianfu 4y ago
  Exactly… no zoning is the best zoning! You wanna be low density, but out all the land and pay for it. If the market supports low density, so be it. In terms of property tax, I thought there was some research that the best way to do that was actually irrespective of the development on top of it? I think the idea being that would encourage development because you’re not taxed on the improvements? Or maybe I’ve got it backwards.
  - huevosabio 4y ago
    Yes, that's the whole point of Land Value Tax, you tax only the value of the "unimproved land". This incentivizes density since the tax can be distributed among all the tenants.
    - km3r 4y ago
      Honestly CA should propose replacing the mess that is property taxes, prop 13, and it's follow ups, with a LVT that is a net neutral revenue for the state. For 90% of people that would be a tax cut, for those who wish to underuse valuable space, they can pay for it.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > Honestly CA should propose replacing the mess that is property taxes, prop 13, and it's follow ups, with a LVT that is a net neutral revenue for the state. For 90% of people that would be a tax cut I think it's close to “for 90% of people who pay property tax that would be a tax increase”; the people it will be a tax cut for are the people with relatively high improvement value on their land compared to the bare land value, like corporate HQs and landlords of high density apartment complexes.
        TimPC 4y ago
        Prop 13 is very difficult to have an exit strategy for because people feel entitled to their feudal (and inheritable) tax rates. The idea that a $2 million home should be treated as a $100,000 one for taxes is laughably wrong, but the people who have enjoyed that benefit for years will be permanently against any politician who changes it. I disagree with the 90% number for the LVT switch on multiple fronts: for starters all the people with historical discounts will pay more. Secondly, the typical SFH pays more and there is a lot of SFH in California. LVT is still worth doing but making it actually happen is politically difficult in the best of states and California is the worst one due to Prop 13.
        parineum 4y ago
prpl 4y ago
Sea Cliff or Pac Heights?
- TaylorAlexander 4y ago
  Checking google maps, looks like Sea Cliff. And I remember now... they even have their own golf course! A looot of land dedicated to a small number of families there.
  - askafriend 4y ago
    It's absolutely gorgeous. The homes are in the $20-100M range and are nothing less than works of art.
    - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
      To me they are disgusting. Monuments to extravagance. All I can think of when I see homes like that are the thousands of people across town huddled under awnings begging for housing. And in this one neighborhood enough money was spent to house all the city’s homeless 100 times over. Appalling. Disgusting. Inhuman. If art has meaning, these “works of art” represent oppression and selfishness.
      - askafriend 4y ago
        Sure I get that perspective. But this is a small neighborhood. The problems that plague the city are not because of this neighborhood. The reason more housing doesn't get built is not because of this neighborhood. Prop 13 that was passed in 1975 is not because of this neighborhood. I get that you see the neighborhood as a symbol for something that angers you, but this is a nationwide problem where we do not build enough housing in general.
  - ed 4y ago
    What’s the name of the golf course?
geoduck14 4y ago
You are joking, right? Sea Cliff hardly takes up any space at all. Sure the houses look big from Google Map - but how many apartments do you expect to cram in there if they were bulldozed?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
shrimpx 4y ago
Isn't Seacliff where Jack Dorsey bought his $30M properties?
kelnos 4y ago
> And if you know anything about the history of red lining in this country, this would have been one of those areas with racial covenants in the deeds to their homes. I know people in Berkeley who own homes in neighborhoods where those kinds of covenants are still on the books, even though they're illegal and unenforceable. It's so weird, and disgusting.
spaetzleesser 4y ago
"I recently discovered the very very wealthy neighborhood of SF in the north west corner of the city and boy, that sure is a low density use and I would LOVE to see that area turned in to high density affordable housing. But then, those people must control the city so it doesn’t seem like that would ever happen." Same with parking. In LA there is the popular Runyon Canyon. On weekends it's parking hell because so many people go there. Interestingly one block down there are some side streets with huge houses and (not surprisingly) street parking isn't allowed there.

huevosabio 4y ago

I honestly don't necessarily want any particular area to be densified. What I want is: 1. Anyone be able to build any type of housing anywhere. 2. Really steep land value taxes I have no issue with a clique of hyper reach folk living in a low density neighborhood, as long as any of them is be able to defect and build a tower if they feel like it _and_ they all pay their LVT.

zhoujianfu 4y ago
Exactly… no zoning is the best zoning! You wanna be low density, but out all the land and pay for it. If the market supports low density, so be it. In terms of property tax, I thought there was some research that the best way to do that was actually irrespective of the development on top of it? I think the idea being that would encourage development because you’re not taxed on the improvements? Or maybe I’ve got it backwards.
- huevosabio 4y ago
  Yes, that's the whole point of Land Value Tax, you tax only the value of the "unimproved land". This incentivizes density since the tax can be distributed among all the tenants.
  - km3r 4y ago
    Honestly CA should propose replacing the mess that is property taxes, prop 13, and it's follow ups, with a LVT that is a net neutral revenue for the state. For 90% of people that would be a tax cut, for those who wish to underuse valuable space, they can pay for it.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > Honestly CA should propose replacing the mess that is property taxes, prop 13, and it's follow ups, with a LVT that is a net neutral revenue for the state. For 90% of people that would be a tax cut I think it's close to “for 90% of people who pay property tax that would be a tax increase”; the people it will be a tax cut for are the people with relatively high improvement value on their land compared to the bare land value, like corporate HQs and landlords of high density apartment complexes.
      - TimPC 4y ago
        Prop 13 is very difficult to have an exit strategy for because people feel entitled to their feudal (and inheritable) tax rates. The idea that a $2 million home should be treated as a $100,000 one for taxes is laughably wrong, but the people who have enjoyed that benefit for years will be permanently against any politician who changes it. I disagree with the 90% number for the LVT switch on multiple fronts: for starters all the people with historical discounts will pay more. Secondly, the typical SFH pays more and there is a lot of SFH in California. LVT is still worth doing but making it actually happen is politically difficult in the best of states and California is the worst one due to Prop 13.
      - parineum 4y ago

prpl 4y ago

Sea Cliff or Pac Heights?

TaylorAlexander 4y ago
Checking google maps, looks like Sea Cliff. And I remember now... they even have their own golf course! A looot of land dedicated to a small number of families there.
- askafriend 4y ago
  It's absolutely gorgeous. The homes are in the $20-100M range and are nothing less than works of art.
  - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
    To me they are disgusting. Monuments to extravagance. All I can think of when I see homes like that are the thousands of people across town huddled under awnings begging for housing. And in this one neighborhood enough money was spent to house all the city’s homeless 100 times over. Appalling. Disgusting. Inhuman. If art has meaning, these “works of art” represent oppression and selfishness.
    - askafriend 4y ago
      Sure I get that perspective. But this is a small neighborhood. The problems that plague the city are not because of this neighborhood. The reason more housing doesn't get built is not because of this neighborhood. Prop 13 that was passed in 1975 is not because of this neighborhood. I get that you see the neighborhood as a symbol for something that angers you, but this is a nationwide problem where we do not build enough housing in general.
- ed 4y ago
  What’s the name of the golf course?

geoduck14 4y ago

You are joking, right? Sea Cliff hardly takes up any space at all. Sure the houses look big from Google Map - but how many apartments do you expect to cram in there if they were bulldozed?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

shrimpx 4y ago

Isn't Seacliff where Jack Dorsey bought his $30M properties?

kelnos 4y ago

> And if you know anything about the history of red lining in this country, this would have been one of those areas with racial covenants in the deeds to their homes. I know people in Berkeley who own homes in neighborhoods where those kinds of covenants are still on the books, even though they're illegal and unenforceable. It's so weird, and disgusting.

spaetzleesser 4y ago

"I recently discovered the very very wealthy neighborhood of SF in the north west corner of the city and boy, that sure is a low density use and I would LOVE to see that area turned in to high density affordable housing. But then, those people must control the city so it doesn’t seem like that would ever happen." Same with parking. In LA there is the popular Runyon Canyon. On weekends it's parking hell because so many people go there. Interestingly one block down there are some side streets with huge houses and (not surprisingly) street parking isn't allowed there.