17 ms·

A legal fund to sue SF over housing deadlock

210 points by jseliger 4y ago

DoreenMichele 4y ago
the “Sue San Francisco Fund,” a fund recently launched by YIMBY Law executive director Sonja Trauss. She's also the founder of YIMBY. This is an organization headed by a woman. It's not an individual stockpiling money. The title could stand to be updated.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  And "stockpiling cash" is code for a few multi-millionaire/billionaire landowners giving her money.
  - idealmedtech 4y ago
    Millionaires and billionaires are typically NIMBYs, not YIMBYs (although in SF being a millionaire is common enough that this probably isn't totally true)
    - epistasis 4y ago
      Most of the millionaires in SF are homeowners that bought at a tiny tiny fraction of that price, and they tend to be the NIMBYiest of them all, since their wealth comes from rentierism. The YIMBYs who became millionaires through wages are far less sympathetic to continue the housing displacement that creates SF homeowner-millionaires through capitalist exploitation. (At least, it's capitalist if you take a classic Marxist view of capitalism, which groups landowners in with business-owning capitalists. Smith and Ricardo hate landowner rentiers with the same fury as Marx, but don't seem to think of them in the same capitalist class.)
      - DoreenMichele 4y ago
        Yeah, the property tax structure in California is a very big contributor to the problem, in my estimation. It's certainly not the ONLY factor, but it is absolutely a cancer on the state of California -- a cancer they don't know how to kill, unfortunately.
        thaumasiotes 4y ago
        One obvious solution would be to eliminate the provision where your property tax is reassessed if you develop the property.
        DoreenMichele 4y ago
        If someone has a giant tumor taking over their heart, one "obvious" answer is to cut their heart out. Problem solved. I mean, patient killed, but ...details. I don't know the answer. I do know that some of the tax incentives related to real property in California are seriously problematic. How to fix them? I don't know. Tax law is not one of my areas of expertise.
        jfim 4y ago
        > I do know that some of the tax incentives related to real property in California are seriously problematic. How to fix them? Repeal prop 13, and replace it with property tax deferral, as done in Texas. If an elderly homeowner living in their house cannot (or does not want to) pay their property taxes, they can elect to defer them for as long as they want to, with some interest accruing. The county puts a lien on the property for the amount of tax due. When the owner passes away, moves out of the property, or sells it, the tax lien needs to be paid, which can be done with the proceeds from selling the property.
        DoreenMichele 4y ago
        Thank you. Have an upvote. I don't know if that actually works, but I do know Prop 13 is a big problem and this is the first I recall seeing some meaningful attempt to suggest an alternative that is actually in use somewhere, so has some hope of being not completely nuts.
    - flomo 4y ago
      NIMBYs in their own backyard, not necessarily your backyard. Marc Andreessen for example. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/marc-andreessens-opposition-housing-project-nimby/671061/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/marc-andre...
      - dominotw 4y ago
        YIYBY, Yes in your backyard.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
latchkey 4y ago
- ryeights 4y ago
  >@ShellenbergerMD >MD = my initials. Not a doc Classy…
- throwaway102233 4y ago
  I think we need to give the homeless more money, that should solve the problem.
  - kadabra9 4y ago
    SF has spent over $3B on the homeless over the last 5 years, and the pop continues to skyrocket along with rampant crime and drug use. Money isn’t the issue, at least in this case
    - uoaei 4y ago
      Giving money to bureaucracies whose nominal mission is to serve the homeless is not the same as giving money to the homeless.
    - MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
      The point about closing institutions because of abuse is not wrong. The solution isn't to close them and push the mentally ill out on the street, it's fix the institutions!
      - throwaway102233 4y ago
        ^ 100% agree, some mentally ill people just need to be in an institution, where they can either get the care and treatment they need - and hopefully be cured and become a functional member of society - or at least where the amount of harm they are able to cause to themselves (and society) can be minimised.
  - 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
quickthrower2 4y ago
Shame democracy means cap in hand to rich people, but at least there is a counterbalance. We simply need more population density in the world, or we restrict immigration and birth rates.
boplicity 4y ago
Interesting tidbits from the article: > San Francisco openly admits to not following a state law requiring certain permit processing times > the state has yet to bring a lawsuit against the city over project denials I like the idea of amassing money that can be used as a threat of a lawsuit. This is the real power that many people do have; this power is possible for all of us, collectively. We can and should influence our elected officials through legal maneuvers, if other efforts fail. It just makes sense.
- barbazoo 4y ago
  With wealth being so unevenly distributed this is just another way for the rich to get what they want and protect their class.
  - actually_a_dog 4y ago
    That's right. I'd rather see it be made possible for average citizens to sue whatever appropriate government agency rather than just allowing people with money to do so. That route takes a left turn at "one person one vote" onto "one dollar one vote." It's the literal opposite of democracy in action.
    - shlurpy 4y ago
      That's one of the purposes of government regulatory agencies. Laws could be enforced entirely through courts, but regulators can fine on behalf of the ordinary people instead of those wealthy enough to sue.
- Buttons840 4y ago
  What happens in a lawsuit against the city? The city might have to pay, but this is basically the people paying themselves - tax payers pay the tax payers. If you sue the city and win, the judge orders the city to follow the law, and they still don't, do elected officials go to jail or something?
  - 4y ago
scythe 4y ago
I feel like she's been talking about this since 2015. We'll see if it ever happens. Gotta respect the persistence, I guess? You'd think one of these advocacy groups could hire some planning consultants/researchers and submit an example zoning map, preferably something more sophisticated than "just make everything fourplexes!", preferably. It's easy to argue ad nauseam about vague concepts like "more housing" but having a real plan to talk about would force everyone, be they in support or opposition, to deal with the realities.
- paulgb 4y ago
  It sounds like that’s exactly what this group is doing. They’re not suing about housing in the abstract, they’re suing over specific denials of projects that would have provided housing. > The group is also involved in two suits against San Francisco related to two of the most high-profile housing denials over the last few years—the planned projects at 450 O’Farrell St.and 469 Stevenson St.
  - scythe 4y ago
    >It sounds like that’s exactly what this group is doing. They’re not suing about housing in the abstract, they’re suing over specific denials of projects that would have provided housing. That's not proactive, it's reactive. It's not even close to what I'm talking about. I said propose a policy, this is piecemeal. The poster below you linked this page: http://cayimby.org/2021-legislation/ http://cayimby.org/2021-legislation/ These are state laws, mostly cutting red tape (which is good). The two proposals which go further than duplexes in zoning reform are SB10, which provides for up to ten units near transit, and AB1075, which provides for up to ten units almost everywhere, provided the building is less than 26 feet tall, complies with setbacks and has not been rented in the last three years, and also provided (a lot of legalese). This is okay, insofar as it's about as good as you can do at state level. But it's not what I meant either, because I was talking about local politics. It's going to be hard to get things done while acting only at state level and tying your hands behind your back with the height and rental provisions. You can't say "we're preserving local control", not engage in local politics, and succeed. Most of the cities where housing is expensive have present zoning ceilings well above 26 feet — most of SF is already built to three stories.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jelliclesfarm 4y ago
Time for NIMBYs to start suing the State. These requirements are mandated through ABAG and cities membership is compulsory. You can’t opt out of ABAG. Can’t guarantee that we won’t have rolling blackouts or water rationing or even provide basic law and order that is essentially the actual definition of a govt’s job…this nonsense has to stop.
- stale2002 4y ago
  The mandates are entirely legal, and people who oppose new housing have no legal leg to stand on. New housing is going to built, as that is what the law says. If you don't like it, then go try and change california law.
  - jelliclesfarm 4y ago
    No, it is not. The state can withhold funding if they don’t fill quotas. And cities can be sued. Cities would rather pay the fine that be subjugated under the thumb of regional governance. The only reason it seems like this goat rodeo is legal is because the elected representatives are pirates and there is no local governance in California. Now that must be challenged and Sacramento must be sued for playing dictator for the entire state when not everyone voted for the clowns running the show.
    - shuckles 4y ago
      Are you aware that land use authority is delegated to cities by the state and can be un-delegated if the state so chooses? What are you going to do, secede from California? Good luck.
      - jelliclesfarm 4y ago
        And that’s the problem. Local governance is lacking in California and the trust in regional governance is being eroded due to the abuse of the political system. Why should part of California secede? We are still a democracy. That’s why we should vote on this. Otherwise it’s taxation without representation and that should be illegal. It’s about time we put an end to this conversion attempt to communist regime in CA.
thematrixturtle 4y ago
Ah yes, more lawsuits, that always works grrrrreat at speeding up bureaucracy.
- lambdaops 4y ago
  Show up to city councils and supervisor board meetings. Lawsuits force action on scofflaw jurisdictions.
cletus 4y ago
I've been following a guy on Tiktok who talks a lot about this and is very active in fighting NIMBYism through California. I can't remember his name but IIRC he's a Google employee. It's crazy the amount of NIMBYism out there. I've seen clips of straight-faced people at council meetings arguing against this because it would ruin the "character" of Atherton. For those that don't know, Atherton is a billionaire enclave in Palo Alto. It just reminded me how much I hate the Bay Area. It's full of what I like to call PINOs (borrowing from RINO; Progressives in Name Only). Fun fact: the newly anointed YC president Garry Tan automatically blocks anyone on Twitter who follows anyone who advocates for housing reform or even likes any tweets from such [1]. I'm hopeful about this. What California really needs however is to revert Prop 13. But yes, San Francisco is going to be a tough nut to crack, particularly with limited enforcement mechanisms in state legislation. Hopefully that too can change. Relying on private enforcement is no solution. [1]: https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/why-did-garry-tan-the-new-ceo-of-y-combinator-block-you-on-twitter/article_3fdd1c1c-28b1-11ed-afa8-b3ba9ebc92cb.html https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/why-did-garry-tan-the-new-ce...
- shuckles 4y ago
  The claim about Garry is untrue. He, for example, has donated to Sonja's legal fund.
  - IntelMiner 4y ago
    Saying it's untrue is a step. Surely it would be easy to prove/disprove?
    - shuckles 4y ago
      Yeah it is easy to disprove: read the third paragraph of the article.
      - lazyasciiart 4y ago
        This? > On Monday and Tuesday, Twitter users posted dozens of screenshots showing Garry Tan, the new CEO of powerful startup accelerator Y Combinator, had blocked their accounts, with many expressing surprise and confusion.
reactspa 4y ago
I have land in City of Monterey that I have not been allowed to do any construction on because there's a moratorium on new water meter issuances. (Update: One cannot get approved for new construction without a water meter.) I am still required to pay full property tax on it each year. If anyone has advice on how I can go about growing a community of people in a similar predicament to eventually engineer a class action suit against the county govt.[1], please share in a reply to this post. (Paging: Peter Thiel.) [1] on the theory: if you're charging me property tax, then give me a water meter just like my neighbor has. And if I can't do anything productive with this land, then give me a huge discount on the property tax. (I'm not even allowed to park a travel-trailer on it for more than 2 days at a time.) ------------- Edit: Water Meter Waiting List (there are people on there waiting since 2003 for a water meter): https://monterey.org/Document%20Center/CommDev/Planning/Water-Allocation-Chart.pdf https://monterey.org/Document%20Center/CommDev/Planning/Wate...
- isthisthingon99 4y ago
  So if you can't install a water meter, can you get it trucked in? Perhaps better than the alternative?
  - reactspa 4y ago
    Good point: you cannot be approved for construction without a water meter.
    - mc32 4y ago
      Can you meter your own artesian water?
      - reactspa 4y ago
        No more personal wells are allowed. The existing ones are grandfathered in (that beautiful invention to keep the elites of the past in power: "grandfathering").
davidw 4y ago
Being part of YIMBY Action is one of the most rewarding, and also fun things that I have done in recent years. It feels like a really good cause, and is starting to get some wins. For instance here in Oregon, we got HB2001, which legalizes up to 4-plexes by right in all our larger cities.
- kitten_mittens_ 4y ago
  What counts as a city in Oregon? If you have a municipality X of 10K people next separated from Portland by another municipality, is it exempted from 4-plexes by right? My hometown in western ID is 25K people including the surrounding county. The parts of town that were built along the railroad are 5 stories tall in a few spots. But everything since then has been 95% zoned for single family homes.
  - davidw 4y ago
    The details are all here. Smaller cities have to allow duplexes by right. https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/UP/Pages/Housing-Choices.aspx https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/UP/Pages/Housing-Choices.aspx
    - kitten_mittens_ 4y ago
      > Additionally, by June 30, 2022, Oregon's large cities (with population over 25,000) and cities in the Portland Metro region, must allow duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, cottage clusters, and townhouses in residential areas. Including the Portland Metro region seems sensible. In the Boston metro, municipalities have too much power. https://commonwealthmagazine.org/opinion/zoning-variances-are-out-of-control-in-boston/ https://commonwealthmagazine.org/opinion/zoning-variances-ar...
- throwayyy479087 4y ago
  Agreed. The NIMBYs were also an absolutely hilarious opponent. I’ve been told that shadows on a park would cause diabetes and covid.
natch 4y ago
The city is flouting the law. Not "flaunting" as the SF Standard reporter puts it in the video.
- hoistbypetard 4y ago
  While your comment aligns with the 16th-century meanings of those two words, Merriam-Webster now [documents the meaning the reporter used](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flaunt https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flaunt) for flaunt as a second meaning, and it's no longer widely seen as incorrect. > Flaunt vs. Flout: Usage Guide > Although the "treat contemptuously" sense of flaunt undoubtedly arose from confusion with flout, the contexts in which it appears cannot be called substandard.
  - natch 4y ago
    Merriam-Webster is taking the distinctly minority view on this, when it comes to dictionaries. When it comes to actual usage, something being "no longer widely seen as incorrect" is not quite the ringing validation for any common mistake of the masses that you seem to think it is. A much better writeup with a listing of many dictionaries and grammar guides that take the correct approach is here: https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2017/06/flaunt-flout.html https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2017/06/flaunt-flout.html
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
holografix 4y ago
I’m not American but have been to SF many times for work. Few places have made me feel more at risk than SF. Can I ask some naïve questions here and have them interpreted kindly, I’m not trying to point to suggest anything or push any agendas. I don’t and won’t live there just trying to understand the dynamics. A proportion of the population will have mental health issues that are perhaps incurable and treatable to certain degrees. Couple severe mental health issues with lack of free and competent medical treatment and access to hard drugs. Now also make it known country wide that there is a place where you’ll be given (relatively generous) financial assistance and little to no oversight and lax police enforcement when you use drugs. Now also build more housing and shelters and combine with amenable weather. Isn’t SF just the most attractive place for self destructing mentally I’ll people to flood to? Anyone in the US from any state can walk into California and receive the benefits and get handled by California police and funded by California tax dollars. This feels like having your cake and eating it to? Shouldn’t this be a federal problem? What would happen if people from Alabama and Texas were shipped back to their states or deprived of financial assistance, or maybe assigned the assistance they get back home? Many of my questions here are based on assumptions and “facts” that are possibly totally wrong. So be kind. I’m just wondering, doesn’t the problem need to be handled at a “systems thinking” level?
- davidw 4y ago
  Homelessness is mostly a factor of housing costs, as this deep dive into the data shows: https://homelessnesshousingproblem.com/ https://homelessnesshousingproblem.com/
  - holografix 4y ago
    Thanks David I’ll have a a look. I hate to categorize people in such a conveniently black and white way but there seems to be a group that desperately need social assistance: housing, health, some upskilling etc and they would rejoin society and live happy productive lives drug free. But also a group that just needs ongoing mental health treatment. I expect the second group to be way smaller of course.
  - diogenescynic 4y ago
quacked 4y ago
The thing that I really hate about YIMBYs is that none of the development they greenlight is ever even slightly pleasant. The YIMBY game plan is to find a city that has a good reputation and nice atmosphere from 50 years ago when it was sparse and really nice, and then throw up 4-plexes as quickly as possible in every vacant lot. They treat neighborhoods and cities like museums that must be crammed as full of new residents as humanely possible, without doing a single thing to make any more square footage of "nice city". They only build more people warehouses everywhere and call it a day. Then they complain about the traffic and criticize existing residents for complaining about the increased crime rate. I hate the ugly, boxy, copy-paste apartment buildings looming up all over my hometown, but what am I to do? The future belongs to the tasteless perma-renter.
- burlesona 4y ago
  This is such a bad misunderstanding of causation. Modern buildings suck because modern city planning sucks. The buildings look like they do because developers have to follow the asinine rules thought up by a bunch of bureaucrats, who are just responding to fear of being yelled at by thin-skinned people who are easily offended. So basically everything except tasteless copy-paste buildings are illegal. The system is so bad it’s beyond tragic to the point of farce. There are better alternatives (search for the CNU Charter Awards for examples), but very few have been able to break through the regulatory slog. Every city has done this to itself.
  - quacked 4y ago
    It's not just the look, it's the location and function. There is no lot too out-of-the-way, secluded, or on a major thoroughfare too much for a copy-paste 4-plex. If the building rules need to be changed for sensible city development and design, then that should be the battleground that YIMBYs are focused on, rather than raucously cheering on every new development owned by an out-of-state investment group (whose board of directors--surprise!--universally live in actually nice areas) and then acting confused when the price of housing doesn't go down across the decade.
- hackerlight 4y ago
metadat 4y ago
Who doesn't love Garry Tan? I've never read a single negative word about him. If he's betting against you, best watch out. That means YOU, The City and Public Officials of San Francisco. Wake up. Your city is messed up and smelly, and it's time to take out the trash and clean the dirt from the streets (literally).
- lazyasciiart 4y ago
  Plenty of negativity in this HN thread about him - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32639125 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32639125
  - metadat 4y ago
    Thank you. Guess most powerful humans are at least a little psycho or at least neurotic. My underlying point still stands, SF is literally shit in the streets compared to top cities.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
nemo44x 4y ago
This article (or the people referenced in it) makes a big deal of SF not following the law while ignoring the fact these same people celebrate that SF ignores many other laws constantly.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
apendleton 4y ago
In case anyone's looking for more background, there's a great book from a couple of years ago called "Golden Gates: Fighting for Housing in America," by NYT reporter Conor Dougherty, that covers the history of the YIMBY movement in California (and to some extent more generally). Sonja Trauss has a prominent role in the narrative.
cannabis_sam 4y ago
The complete and utterly unbridled hate and insanity of these people, who are ferociously fighting, tooth and nail, to deny their fellow humans housing, is truly a failure state of humanity.. At least people like this legal fund are fighting back
ajl666 4y ago
How about suing all the idiots who voted to make all city employees multi millionaires? Oh, they moved away to suburbs. Too bad about the liability. Then new idiots can move into town to litigate on behalf of the old idiots who left the city and state. SF is where stupids can implement stupid undergrad ideas and move elsewhere to tsk tsk the carnage. And all the moralizing in this thread ignores this crux issue.
ajl666 4y ago
SF is a city occupied by a hostile government. Litigious morons are just pawns in the pension pirate hustle. Nothing gets fixed as long as the 45k city employee monkey is on the city's back. You CANNOT have responsible public planning when the city's employees look at the city as a place to pillage, not govern.
LinkLink 4y ago
If only there were some sort of entity that everyone contributed a portion of their resources to that would act in the interest of the people. Maybe we can come up with a way to create rules and regulations that we all agree to follow for the greater good too. What a fucking joke of a system.

210 points by jseliger 4y ago

the “Sue San Francisco Fund,” a fund recently launched by YIMBY Law executive director Sonja Trauss. She's also the founder of YIMBY. This is an organization headed by a woman. It's not an individual stockpiling money. The title could stand to be updated.

pessimizer 4y ago
And "stockpiling cash" is code for a few multi-millionaire/billionaire landowners giving her money.
- idealmedtech 4y ago
  Millionaires and billionaires are typically NIMBYs, not YIMBYs (although in SF being a millionaire is common enough that this probably isn't totally true)
  - epistasis 4y ago
    Most of the millionaires in SF are homeowners that bought at a tiny tiny fraction of that price, and they tend to be the NIMBYiest of them all, since their wealth comes from rentierism. The YIMBYs who became millionaires through wages are far less sympathetic to continue the housing displacement that creates SF homeowner-millionaires through capitalist exploitation. (At least, it's capitalist if you take a classic Marxist view of capitalism, which groups landowners in with business-owning capitalists. Smith and Ricardo hate landowner rentiers with the same fury as Marx, but don't seem to think of them in the same capitalist class.)
    - DoreenMichele 4y ago
      Yeah, the property tax structure in California is a very big contributor to the problem, in my estimation. It's certainly not the ONLY factor, but it is absolutely a cancer on the state of California -- a cancer they don't know how to kill, unfortunately.
      - thaumasiotes 4y ago
        One obvious solution would be to eliminate the provision where your property tax is reassessed if you develop the property.
        DoreenMichele 4y ago
        If someone has a giant tumor taking over their heart, one "obvious" answer is to cut their heart out. Problem solved. I mean, patient killed, but ...details. I don't know the answer. I do know that some of the tax incentives related to real property in California are seriously problematic. How to fix them? I don't know. Tax law is not one of my areas of expertise.
        jfim 4y ago
        > I do know that some of the tax incentives related to real property in California are seriously problematic. How to fix them? Repeal prop 13, and replace it with property tax deferral, as done in Texas. If an elderly homeowner living in their house cannot (or does not want to) pay their property taxes, they can elect to defer them for as long as they want to, with some interest accruing. The county puts a lien on the property for the amount of tax due. When the owner passes away, moves out of the property, or sells it, the tax lien needs to be paid, which can be done with the proceeds from selling the property.
        DoreenMichele 4y ago
        Thank you. Have an upvote. I don't know if that actually works, but I do know Prop 13 is a big problem and this is the first I recall seeing some meaningful attempt to suggest an alternative that is actually in use somewhere, so has some hope of being not completely nuts.
  - flomo 4y ago
    NIMBYs in their own backyard, not necessarily your backyard. Marc Andreessen for example. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/marc-andreessens-opposition-housing-project-nimby/671061/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/marc-andre...
    - dominotw 4y ago
      YIYBY, Yes in your backyard.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

latchkey 4y ago

ryeights 4y ago
>@ShellenbergerMD >MD = my initials. Not a doc Classy…
throwaway102233 4y ago
I think we need to give the homeless more money, that should solve the problem.
- kadabra9 4y ago
  SF has spent over $3B on the homeless over the last 5 years, and the pop continues to skyrocket along with rampant crime and drug use. Money isn’t the issue, at least in this case
  - uoaei 4y ago
    Giving money to bureaucracies whose nominal mission is to serve the homeless is not the same as giving money to the homeless.
  - MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
    The point about closing institutions because of abuse is not wrong. The solution isn't to close them and push the mentally ill out on the street, it's fix the institutions!
    - throwaway102233 4y ago
      ^ 100% agree, some mentally ill people just need to be in an institution, where they can either get the care and treatment they need - and hopefully be cured and become a functional member of society - or at least where the amount of harm they are able to cause to themselves (and society) can be minimised.
- 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

quickthrower2 4y ago

Shame democracy means cap in hand to rich people, but at least there is a counterbalance. We simply need more population density in the world, or we restrict immigration and birth rates.

boplicity 4y ago

Interesting tidbits from the article: > San Francisco openly admits to not following a state law requiring certain permit processing times > the state has yet to bring a lawsuit against the city over project denials I like the idea of amassing money that can be used as a threat of a lawsuit. This is the real power that many people do have; this power is possible for all of us, collectively. We can and should influence our elected officials through legal maneuvers, if other efforts fail. It just makes sense.

barbazoo 4y ago
With wealth being so unevenly distributed this is just another way for the rich to get what they want and protect their class.
- actually_a_dog 4y ago
  That's right. I'd rather see it be made possible for average citizens to sue whatever appropriate government agency rather than just allowing people with money to do so. That route takes a left turn at "one person one vote" onto "one dollar one vote." It's the literal opposite of democracy in action.
  - shlurpy 4y ago
    That's one of the purposes of government regulatory agencies. Laws could be enforced entirely through courts, but regulators can fine on behalf of the ordinary people instead of those wealthy enough to sue.
Buttons840 4y ago
What happens in a lawsuit against the city? The city might have to pay, but this is basically the people paying themselves - tax payers pay the tax payers. If you sue the city and win, the judge orders the city to follow the law, and they still don't, do elected officials go to jail or something?
- 4y ago

scythe 4y ago

I feel like she's been talking about this since 2015. We'll see if it ever happens. Gotta respect the persistence, I guess? You'd think one of these advocacy groups could hire some planning consultants/researchers and submit an example zoning map, preferably something more sophisticated than "just make everything fourplexes!", preferably. It's easy to argue ad nauseam about vague concepts like "more housing" but having a real plan to talk about would force everyone, be they in support or opposition, to deal with the realities.

paulgb 4y ago
It sounds like that’s exactly what this group is doing. They’re not suing about housing in the abstract, they’re suing over specific denials of projects that would have provided housing. > The group is also involved in two suits against San Francisco related to two of the most high-profile housing denials over the last few years—the planned projects at 450 O’Farrell St.and 469 Stevenson St.
- scythe 4y ago
  >It sounds like that’s exactly what this group is doing. They’re not suing about housing in the abstract, they’re suing over specific denials of projects that would have provided housing. That's not proactive, it's reactive. It's not even close to what I'm talking about. I said propose a policy, this is piecemeal. The poster below you linked this page: http://cayimby.org/2021-legislation/ http://cayimby.org/2021-legislation/ These are state laws, mostly cutting red tape (which is good). The two proposals which go further than duplexes in zoning reform are SB10, which provides for up to ten units near transit, and AB1075, which provides for up to ten units almost everywhere, provided the building is less than 26 feet tall, complies with setbacks and has not been rented in the last three years, and also provided (a lot of legalese). This is okay, insofar as it's about as good as you can do at state level. But it's not what I meant either, because I was talking about local politics. It's going to be hard to get things done while acting only at state level and tying your hands behind your back with the height and rental provisions. You can't say "we're preserving local control", not engage in local politics, and succeed. Most of the cities where housing is expensive have present zoning ceilings well above 26 feet — most of SF is already built to three stories.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jelliclesfarm 4y ago

Time for NIMBYs to start suing the State. These requirements are mandated through ABAG and cities membership is compulsory. You can’t opt out of ABAG. Can’t guarantee that we won’t have rolling blackouts or water rationing or even provide basic law and order that is essentially the actual definition of a govt’s job…this nonsense has to stop.

stale2002 4y ago
The mandates are entirely legal, and people who oppose new housing have no legal leg to stand on. New housing is going to built, as that is what the law says. If you don't like it, then go try and change california law.
- jelliclesfarm 4y ago
  No, it is not. The state can withhold funding if they don’t fill quotas. And cities can be sued. Cities would rather pay the fine that be subjugated under the thumb of regional governance. The only reason it seems like this goat rodeo is legal is because the elected representatives are pirates and there is no local governance in California. Now that must be challenged and Sacramento must be sued for playing dictator for the entire state when not everyone voted for the clowns running the show.
  - shuckles 4y ago
    Are you aware that land use authority is delegated to cities by the state and can be un-delegated if the state so chooses? What are you going to do, secede from California? Good luck.
    - jelliclesfarm 4y ago
      And that’s the problem. Local governance is lacking in California and the trust in regional governance is being eroded due to the abuse of the political system. Why should part of California secede? We are still a democracy. That’s why we should vote on this. Otherwise it’s taxation without representation and that should be illegal. It’s about time we put an end to this conversion attempt to communist regime in CA.

thematrixturtle 4y ago

Ah yes, more lawsuits, that always works grrrrreat at speeding up bureaucracy.

lambdaops 4y ago
Show up to city councils and supervisor board meetings. Lawsuits force action on scofflaw jurisdictions.

cletus 4y ago

I've been following a guy on Tiktok who talks a lot about this and is very active in fighting NIMBYism through California. I can't remember his name but IIRC he's a Google employee. It's crazy the amount of NIMBYism out there. I've seen clips of straight-faced people at council meetings arguing against this because it would ruin the "character" of Atherton. For those that don't know, Atherton is a billionaire enclave in Palo Alto. It just reminded me how much I hate the Bay Area. It's full of what I like to call PINOs (borrowing from RINO; Progressives in Name Only). Fun fact: the newly anointed YC president Garry Tan automatically blocks anyone on Twitter who follows anyone who advocates for housing reform or even likes any tweets from such [1]. I'm hopeful about this. What California really needs however is to revert Prop 13. But yes, San Francisco is going to be a tough nut to crack, particularly with limited enforcement mechanisms in state legislation. Hopefully that too can change. Relying on private enforcement is no solution. [1]: https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/why-did-garry-tan-the-new-ceo-of-y-combinator-block-you-on-twitter/article_3fdd1c1c-28b1-11ed-afa8-b3ba9ebc92cb.html https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/why-did-garry-tan-the-new-ce...

shuckles 4y ago
The claim about Garry is untrue. He, for example, has donated to Sonja's legal fund.
- IntelMiner 4y ago
  Saying it's untrue is a step. Surely it would be easy to prove/disprove?
  - shuckles 4y ago
    Yeah it is easy to disprove: read the third paragraph of the article.
    - lazyasciiart 4y ago
      This? > On Monday and Tuesday, Twitter users posted dozens of screenshots showing Garry Tan, the new CEO of powerful startup accelerator Y Combinator, had blocked their accounts, with many expressing surprise and confusion.

reactspa 4y ago

I have land in City of Monterey that I have not been allowed to do any construction on because there's a moratorium on new water meter issuances. (Update: One cannot get approved for new construction without a water meter.) I am still required to pay full property tax on it each year. If anyone has advice on how I can go about growing a community of people in a similar predicament to eventually engineer a class action suit against the county govt.[1], please share in a reply to this post. (Paging: Peter Thiel.) [1] on the theory: if you're charging me property tax, then give me a water meter just like my neighbor has. And if I can't do anything productive with this land, then give me a huge discount on the property tax. (I'm not even allowed to park a travel-trailer on it for more than 2 days at a time.) ------------- Edit: Water Meter Waiting List (there are people on there waiting since 2003 for a water meter): https://monterey.org/Document%20Center/CommDev/Planning/Water-Allocation-Chart.pdf https://monterey.org/Document%20Center/CommDev/Planning/Wate...

isthisthingon99 4y ago
So if you can't install a water meter, can you get it trucked in? Perhaps better than the alternative?
- reactspa 4y ago
  Good point: you cannot be approved for construction without a water meter.
  - mc32 4y ago
    Can you meter your own artesian water?
    - reactspa 4y ago
      No more personal wells are allowed. The existing ones are grandfathered in (that beautiful invention to keep the elites of the past in power: "grandfathering").

davidw 4y ago

Being part of YIMBY Action is one of the most rewarding, and also fun things that I have done in recent years. It feels like a really good cause, and is starting to get some wins. For instance here in Oregon, we got HB2001, which legalizes up to 4-plexes by right in all our larger cities.

kitten_mittens_ 4y ago
What counts as a city in Oregon? If you have a municipality X of 10K people next separated from Portland by another municipality, is it exempted from 4-plexes by right? My hometown in western ID is 25K people including the surrounding county. The parts of town that were built along the railroad are 5 stories tall in a few spots. But everything since then has been 95% zoned for single family homes.
- davidw 4y ago
  The details are all here. Smaller cities have to allow duplexes by right. https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/UP/Pages/Housing-Choices.aspx https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/UP/Pages/Housing-Choices.aspx
  - kitten_mittens_ 4y ago
    > Additionally, by June 30, 2022, Oregon's large cities (with population over 25,000) and cities in the Portland Metro region, must allow duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, cottage clusters, and townhouses in residential areas. Including the Portland Metro region seems sensible. In the Boston metro, municipalities have too much power. https://commonwealthmagazine.org/opinion/zoning-variances-are-out-of-control-in-boston/ https://commonwealthmagazine.org/opinion/zoning-variances-ar...
throwayyy479087 4y ago
Agreed. The NIMBYs were also an absolutely hilarious opponent. I’ve been told that shadows on a park would cause diabetes and covid.

natch 4y ago

The city is flouting the law. Not "flaunting" as the SF Standard reporter puts it in the video.

hoistbypetard 4y ago
While your comment aligns with the 16th-century meanings of those two words, Merriam-Webster now [documents the meaning the reporter used](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flaunt https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flaunt) for flaunt as a second meaning, and it's no longer widely seen as incorrect. > Flaunt vs. Flout: Usage Guide > Although the "treat contemptuously" sense of flaunt undoubtedly arose from confusion with flout, the contexts in which it appears cannot be called substandard.
- natch 4y ago
  Merriam-Webster is taking the distinctly minority view on this, when it comes to dictionaries. When it comes to actual usage, something being "no longer widely seen as incorrect" is not quite the ringing validation for any common mistake of the masses that you seem to think it is. A much better writeup with a listing of many dictionaries and grammar guides that take the correct approach is here: https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2017/06/flaunt-flout.html https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2017/06/flaunt-flout.html
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

holografix 4y ago

I’m not American but have been to SF many times for work. Few places have made me feel more at risk than SF. Can I ask some naïve questions here and have them interpreted kindly, I’m not trying to point to suggest anything or push any agendas. I don’t and won’t live there just trying to understand the dynamics. A proportion of the population will have mental health issues that are perhaps incurable and treatable to certain degrees. Couple severe mental health issues with lack of free and competent medical treatment and access to hard drugs. Now also make it known country wide that there is a place where you’ll be given (relatively generous) financial assistance and little to no oversight and lax police enforcement when you use drugs. Now also build more housing and shelters and combine with amenable weather. Isn’t SF just the most attractive place for self destructing mentally I’ll people to flood to? Anyone in the US from any state can walk into California and receive the benefits and get handled by California police and funded by California tax dollars. This feels like having your cake and eating it to? Shouldn’t this be a federal problem? What would happen if people from Alabama and Texas were shipped back to their states or deprived of financial assistance, or maybe assigned the assistance they get back home? Many of my questions here are based on assumptions and “facts” that are possibly totally wrong. So be kind. I’m just wondering, doesn’t the problem need to be handled at a “systems thinking” level?

davidw 4y ago
Homelessness is mostly a factor of housing costs, as this deep dive into the data shows: https://homelessnesshousingproblem.com/ https://homelessnesshousingproblem.com/
- holografix 4y ago
  Thanks David I’ll have a a look. I hate to categorize people in such a conveniently black and white way but there seems to be a group that desperately need social assistance: housing, health, some upskilling etc and they would rejoin society and live happy productive lives drug free. But also a group that just needs ongoing mental health treatment. I expect the second group to be way smaller of course.
- diogenescynic 4y ago

quacked 4y ago

The thing that I really hate about YIMBYs is that none of the development they greenlight is ever even slightly pleasant. The YIMBY game plan is to find a city that has a good reputation and nice atmosphere from 50 years ago when it was sparse and really nice, and then throw up 4-plexes as quickly as possible in every vacant lot. They treat neighborhoods and cities like museums that must be crammed as full of new residents as humanely possible, without doing a single thing to make any more square footage of "nice city". They only build more people warehouses everywhere and call it a day. Then they complain about the traffic and criticize existing residents for complaining about the increased crime rate. I hate the ugly, boxy, copy-paste apartment buildings looming up all over my hometown, but what am I to do? The future belongs to the tasteless perma-renter.

burlesona 4y ago
This is such a bad misunderstanding of causation. Modern buildings suck because modern city planning sucks. The buildings look like they do because developers have to follow the asinine rules thought up by a bunch of bureaucrats, who are just responding to fear of being yelled at by thin-skinned people who are easily offended. So basically everything except tasteless copy-paste buildings are illegal. The system is so bad it’s beyond tragic to the point of farce. There are better alternatives (search for the CNU Charter Awards for examples), but very few have been able to break through the regulatory slog. Every city has done this to itself.
- quacked 4y ago
  It's not just the look, it's the location and function. There is no lot too out-of-the-way, secluded, or on a major thoroughfare too much for a copy-paste 4-plex. If the building rules need to be changed for sensible city development and design, then that should be the battleground that YIMBYs are focused on, rather than raucously cheering on every new development owned by an out-of-state investment group (whose board of directors--surprise!--universally live in actually nice areas) and then acting confused when the price of housing doesn't go down across the decade.
hackerlight 4y ago

metadat 4y ago

Who doesn't love Garry Tan? I've never read a single negative word about him. If he's betting against you, best watch out. That means YOU, The City and Public Officials of San Francisco. Wake up. Your city is messed up and smelly, and it's time to take out the trash and clean the dirt from the streets (literally).

lazyasciiart 4y ago
Plenty of negativity in this HN thread about him - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32639125 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32639125
- metadat 4y ago
  Thank you. Guess most powerful humans are at least a little psycho or at least neurotic. My underlying point still stands, SF is literally shit in the streets compared to top cities.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

nemo44x 4y ago

This article (or the people referenced in it) makes a big deal of SF not following the law while ignoring the fact these same people celebrate that SF ignores many other laws constantly.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

apendleton 4y ago

In case anyone's looking for more background, there's a great book from a couple of years ago called "Golden Gates: Fighting for Housing in America," by NYT reporter Conor Dougherty, that covers the history of the YIMBY movement in California (and to some extent more generally). Sonja Trauss has a prominent role in the narrative.

cannabis_sam 4y ago

The complete and utterly unbridled hate and insanity of these people, who are ferociously fighting, tooth and nail, to deny their fellow humans housing, is truly a failure state of humanity.. At least people like this legal fund are fighting back

ajl666 4y ago

How about suing all the idiots who voted to make all city employees multi millionaires? Oh, they moved away to suburbs. Too bad about the liability. Then new idiots can move into town to litigate on behalf of the old idiots who left the city and state. SF is where stupids can implement stupid undergrad ideas and move elsewhere to tsk tsk the carnage. And all the moralizing in this thread ignores this crux issue.

ajl666 4y ago

SF is a city occupied by a hostile government. Litigious morons are just pawns in the pension pirate hustle. Nothing gets fixed as long as the 45k city employee monkey is on the city's back. You CANNOT have responsible public planning when the city's employees look at the city as a place to pillage, not govern.

LinkLink 4y ago

If only there were some sort of entity that everyone contributed a portion of their resources to that would act in the interest of the people. Maybe we can come up with a way to create rules and regulations that we all agree to follow for the greater good too. What a fucking joke of a system.