>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 w

>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.