4 ms·

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 g

by 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.
shuckles 4y ago
These advocacy groups have written and passed many bills improving land use in the state and continue to do so. Check out the legislation page: http://cayimby.org/2021-legislation/ http://cayimby.org/2021-legislation/
- davidw 4y ago
  And that's just California. I'm part of a YIMBY Action chapter in Oregon where we're seeing wins ourselves. As the housing crisis worsens all over the country, it's not surprising that it's a political message that has legs and groups are forming all over, and starting to get some things done.

by scythe 4y ago

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.

shuckles 4y ago

These advocacy groups have written and passed many bills improving land use in the state and continue to do so. Check out the legislation page: http://cayimby.org/2021-legislation/ http://cayimby.org/2021-legislation/

davidw 4y ago
And that's just California. I'm part of a YIMBY Action chapter in Oregon where we're seeing wins ourselves. As the housing crisis worsens all over the country, it's not surprising that it's a political message that has legs and groups are forming all over, and starting to get some things done.