14 ms·

How San Francisco makes it insanely hard to build housing

212 points by jseliger 4y ago

more_corn 4y ago
I spent a solid week in the planning office trying to get a permit to build a deck on my property. After visiting five desks, redrawing plans every night to fix their absurd nits at the final window the lady pushed the plans back across the desk. “I just don’t like the professionalism of these drawing.” Drawings were made by a contractor with 20 years experience. You know why housing doesn’t get built in San Francisco? That office. 100% of the problem.
- newswasboring 4y ago
  What does that even mean? Were the plans too professional or not professional enough?
- s5300 4y ago
  I think mobsters used to kill people like this.
  - hahaxdxd123 4y ago
    In some cities, these departments are the legacies of the mob.
  - Elv13 4y ago
    There was a (government) public investigation / shame campaign a few years ago ago the construction industry in Montreal, Canada. One of the person who testified in exchange for not being jailed was "Mr. 3%", a member of the office who approve (public) construction projects. He took 3% of the project total cost (in bribes) from the top 30 contractors in exchange for making sure their permits requests never got in these artificial rejection loops. The bureaucracy, just like the old taxi industry, is about keeping smaller players out, not enforcing the codes.
    - kennend3 4y ago
      > The bureaucracy, just like the old taxi industry, is about keeping smaller players out, not enforcing the codes. See my post above.. it is also about feeding the bureaucracy itself as well. Some places (like where i live) actually go driving around looking for construction taking place so they can issue "stop work" orders and force you to get permits. they use these permits to ask for more federal/provincial money as they are 'growing'. They also grow the bureaucracy machine, which allows them to hire more people to drive around looking for lumber on your yard, to make you buy more permits...
    - notch656a 4y ago
      Honestly paying 3% to make sure your shit gets approved sounds great. It's kind of like dealing with a hooker instead of a wife -- at least you know exactly what it's going to cost after you leave. More corruption at this point would almost be a good thing. As things stand there's basically no personal incentive for inspectors to actually approve projects.
      - Elv13 4y ago
        It was 3% as long as you were part of the conspirator and make it extra painful to everybody else. What the conspirators wanted out of this was to control the number of players so they could limit supply and control rates. Paying people to do nothing while you wait for the permits is how you bankrupt small contractors.
- beebeepka 4y ago
  Sounds like their job is to not let you do anything. Smells like corruption, unless no one is allowed to build anything which I doubt but could be wrong about
- alephnerd 4y ago
  This is a good overview of the dysfunction of the DBI - https://missionlocal.org/2021/02/san-francisco-department-of-building-inspection-deputy-director-iii/ https://missionlocal.org/2021/02/san-francisco-department-of...
- ed25519FUUU 4y ago
  Imagine a candidate saying he/she was going to fire 90% of the planning office and end environment and community impact studies. Do you think that candidate will succeed with SF’s voters?
- nerfhammer 4y ago
  you obviously should have hired the services of a "permit expediter" which is totally not a legal form of bribery
- jonny_eh 4y ago
  She was likely expecting a bribe.
- diebeforei485 4y ago
  The fact that they use paper and not digital drawings is part of how they keep the corruption going.
- testfoobar 4y ago
  In some countries, this might be corruption, directing business to "preferred" vendors, or it by straight up bribe seeking actions. In SF and around the bay, it seems to be straight up we don't want to build in our city, so go away.
  - idontpost 4y ago
    Even in SF that was straight up solicitation for a bribe.
- kennend3 4y ago
  I live in a small town in Ontario just outside Toronto and this problem is GLOBAL. I did a walkout basement years ago, the f'ing building inspector came to my house every single day. It got to the point he was stopping by for lunch simply to abuse my wife's hospitality. we had enough and finally asked him what he wants. He basically told us to call the city and tell them what a great job he was doing. We did this just to get rid of him. I dont think the government has any clue what the lower level people are actually doing. It isnt about "building permits" but government empire building and control.
- opportune 4y ago
  https://missionlocal.org/2020/03/department-of-building-inspection-head-tom-hui-suspended-allegations-of-wrongdoing-stretching-back-to-2011-uncovered-during-city-attorney-probe-of-mohammed-nuru/ https://missionlocal.org/2020/03/department-of-building-insp... Ironically some people complained about Hui from the perspective of opposing development (signing off on things he shouldn’t have). But it’s two sides of the same coin - making housing so hard to build is what creates the market for “expediters” and the opportunity for corruption in the housing bureaucracy
- thebradbain 4y ago
  This is why in Los Angeles I've noticed there's so much un-permitted work done without anyone batting an eye. That's also why you have so many un-permitted ADUs in this city complete with plumbing and electrical. Fence higher than 6 feet? That's technically against the law and you need a special permit, but no one cares and contractors will build without one. We're talking about LA, where concrete walls over 10 feet around homes are common. Pouring more than 30 square feet of concrete, or replacing a driveway? You need a permit. But guess what, yup, contractors will do that without batting an eye. Replacing a sink or toilet? Yup, you need a permit. Installing a built-in book shelf that technically takes away square footage? You need a permit. New windows? Permit! New showerhead, that's a permit too – yes, actually. And all of these have fees (some of which are more than the cost of the change), inspections, and will be factored into the tax assessment. These are requirements for both single family homes and multi-family developments. While LA has no shortage of laws on the books, I'm thankful that at least compared to San Francisco contractors have no hesitation cutting right through it. It might have to do with the fact that unlike SF, LA has the space to keep things out of site from overly-nosy neighbors.
the_snooze 4y ago
For such a "progressive" city, San Francisco sure is against progress.
- lostgame 4y ago
  San Fransisco is the epitome of visually seeing what is so messed up about our current breed of Capitalism. Orlando was very similar when I lived there - with Disney World literally on the other side of the highway from extremely derelict project housing. I would drive through I-437 and just shake my head in sadness. It's an eerie reminder of how fragile life is and how little we collectively care about solving these problems above making money for our individual selves.
  - jsnk 4y ago
    I fail to see how the housing issue in SF and the issue you mentioned in Orlando is related to capitalism. I think people with capital would love to develop housing in SF which would ease the housing problem in SF. In fact, people with capital really are the only people that may be able to solve the housing problem in SF. And the reason why they can't do this is the local government. How is this some sort of problem with capitalism?
    - loudmax 4y ago
      People do what they can to prop up the value of the properties into which they've invested their capital. The last thing they want is competition in the property market, hence their support for local government rules to hinder development. This is capitalism shutting down the free market.
      - dmix 4y ago
        Capitalism is when you exploit government policy to exclude others people from a market, in order to make more money? Being incentivized to make money is not all it takes to make it capitalism. If the policy is a net-negative for the market as a whole then the market will work to get rid of the policy, because there will be more people excluded than benefit. The only reason it would stick around is if there are motivations excluding capital/market aspects, such as equity, altruism, and social good.
vondur 4y ago
San Francisco makes it hard to do any type of construction. Check JWZ's adventures in getting work done on the DNA lounge, it's crazy to read.
- gnu8 4y ago
  Do you have a link to one of his blog posts about this?
  - vondur 4y ago
    I'd have to look, but it was during some contstruction they were doing in the pizza restaurant I believe. I don't want to post the link here as he has a redirect which ridicules HN users.... (edited for spelling)
  - anp 4y ago
    I hadn’t been following their plumbing saga but seems pretty rough. EDIT: I had pasted a link but it seems that the author redirects HN traffic to something other than the intended content. The one I linked was the most recent post on DNA Lounge’s blog when I wrote this comment.
    - reportingsjr 4y ago
      Just a heads up, but jwz redirects links from hackernews to a page that isn't exactly safe for work.
      - anp 4y ago
        Ha! Learn something new every day.
  - nerfhammer 4y ago
    FYI, jwz hates HN for whatever reason and redirects HN referers to shock sites
- jonny_eh 4y ago
alephnerd 4y ago
This article is a good overview on why some of the dysfunction exists in the DBI - https://missionlocal.org/2021/02/san-francisco-department-of https://missionlocal.org/2021/02/san-francisco-department-of...
abeppu 4y ago
> And if his project was fully up to code but still denied—which would likely be illegal under another state law that bars arbitrary housing denials—he could sue all the way to a state judge and set a precedent. > So he set out to get the project denied at the Board of Supervisors so he could settle out his building rights in court > Knowing he was likely headed to court, Tillman refused to jump through the hoops normally required for getting a housing project off the ground in San Francisco. There are a lot of real issues here, but this article gives a skewed picture of the problems by focusing on a somewhat unusual example, in which the owner actively resisted the city's process with the intention of going to court. Tillman has done plenty of media and activism, and it seems his goal was not just to get the project approved in order to proceed, but to use the legal system to clarify developers rights more broadly. Whatever you think of that approach, I think "sue all the way to a state judge and set a precedent" was always going to be slow. UPDATE: to clarify, I'm in no way trying to defend the city's process, corrupt officials, etc. I just think the article could have illustrated the problems better by focusing on a project that took the typical approach and paid out X, was delayed Y years etc, rather than Tillman's more unusual strategy.
- jeffbee 4y ago
  The "approval process" was that city officials demanded he bribe local shakedown outfits. So of course he resisted it. The reason that Tillman is the only person to ever say no to the shakedown is that he isn't a developer, and he doesn't have other properties he wants to build, and he has no interest in maintaining a working relationship with the city.
  - kcplate 4y ago
    > The reason that Tillman is the only person to ever say no to the shakedown is that he isn't a developer, and he doesn't have other properties he wants to build, and he has no interest in maintaining a working relationship with the city. Sounds to me like the perfect person to expose it for what it is.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > There are a lot of real issues here, but this article gives a skewed picture of the problems by focusing on a somewhat unusual example, in which the owner actively resisted the city's process with the intention of going to court. The reason he can take the issue to court like this is because the city's "process" is illegal. > Tillman has done plenty of media and activism, and it seems his goal was not just to get the project approved in order to proceed, but to use the legal system to clarify developers rights more broadly. Good for him. > Whatever you think of that approach, I think "sue all the way to a state judge and set a precedent" was always going to be slow. Saying something is slow is meaningless if you don't compare it to something else. What avenue for reform in SF would be faster? The legal solution may not move as fast as anybody would like, but I think it will be faster than any idea anybody else might have (which seemingly mostly boils down to 'raise awareness' and 'fundraising for local politicians'.)
huevosabio 4y ago
If you think, as I do, that this is absurd join other like-minded people in San Francisco's 2022 YIMBY Prom Party: https://yimbyaction.org/2021/events/yimby-prom-gala-bay-area-2022/ https://yimbyaction.org/2021/events/yimby-prom-gala-bay-area... There will be drinks and appetizers, as well as the bulk of the Yimby and Yimby-adjacent people in the Bay Area. The funds raised go exactly to fight the type of cronyism and insanity that makes SF so ossified and housing impossible to build. (if you do buy tickets, write huevosabio as referral and DM me to meet there :))
- nopenopenopeno 4y ago
  FYI: When someone uses the term “YIMBY” all I hear is “LANDLORD” and I don’t think I am alone.
  - TulliusCicero 4y ago
    That makes no sense. Landlords tend to be opposed to YIMBY's, because allowing for more housing makes for a more competitive housing market, rather than one in which landowners dominate.
    - nopenopenopeno 4y ago
      Why would landlords in the market with the highest demand prioritize fending off competition? The answer is they wouldn’t. You’re full of it. Landlords want to maximize profit from their property and when demand is soaring above supply, adding units is the way to do that so they are organizing to overturn laws that prevent them from doing so. There is a reason the tickets to this event cost $100+. This isn’t a working class movement lol. You are either stupid yourself or you’ve got a lot of nerve to act like others are, which is to say you certainly act like a landlord.
      - prottog 4y ago
        > Landlords want to maximize profit from their property and when demand is soaring above supply, adding units is the way to do that You're saying that as supply catches up to the soaring demand, profits will go up instead of down? There's a lot of name-calling in your post and not a lot of sense.
ed25519FUUU 4y ago
Everybody wants to build housing, but no bureaucrat wants to give up control to saying “yes” or “no” to projects. We need some radical anti-bureaucracy candidates, but there’s not good overlap with the local ideological demographic. Stalemate.
- lazide 4y ago
  Near as I can tell, it's due to radical ideological splits among the different power bases, and little in the way of shared culture/values. Some prominent ones being the Latinos, Chinese, Japanese, Tech, Finance, etc. blocs. The stakes are high enough and the blocs are big enough, it's easy to drive divisions between them and play them against each other. It lets someone who wants to point fingers at another group and fearmonger enough folks to block anything they don't want - and among the different blocs, there is no specific thing they all agree on. One classic recent example of this is Zoning for Marijuana dispensaries. For a long time post legalization, there literally were only 2 potential locations in SF you could get permitted to open one due to extreme school location distance requirements, driven partially by the Chinese bloc. [https://www.sfexaminer.com/the_fs/forum/conservative-chinese-push-for-sf-cannabis-ban-could-spark-serious-political-benefits/article_d0f843e7-75b3-5a57-b538-459b56142b64.html https://www.sfexaminer.com/the_fs/forum/conservative-chinese...] Even now, there are only ~42. [https://sfstandard.com/arts-culture/cannabis-lounge-map-marijuana-weed-dispensary-map-san-francisco/ https://sfstandard.com/arts-culture/cannabis-lounge-map-mari...] That is a ludicrously low number for a city of San Francisco's size, even if you don't know the history of San Francisco as one of the counter culture/weed cultures epicenters. Of course, during this entire time it was still easy to find weed - just not legally. There is a huge underground market that never stopped. And regardless of legality, there were no meaningful penalties except from the Feds (who have gotten a cold shoulder from SF for a VERY long time), as the local Police stopped enforcing anti-Marijuana rules consistently sometime in the 70s. California overall (and the US) is becoming more and more like San Francisco. It's like a cancer, as lack of belief in social institutions or a coherent social identity trends towards 'snitches get stitches' and 'fuck you, I got mine', which just enables predators.
- huevosabio 4y ago
  SF Yimby (Yimby Action chapter) [0] and GrowSF [1] are two orgs that constantly push for removing bureaucrats's discretionary power to say "yes" or "no" to projects. Yimby Action is having its main fundraising event [2] this October, if you want to meet other like minded people and push for a change (if you do, write huevosabio as your referral, I'll be there :)). [0] https://www.sfyimby.org/endorsements https://www.sfyimby.org/endorsements [1] https://growsf.org/voter-guide https://growsf.org/voter-guide [2] https://yimbyaction.org/2021/events/yimby-prom-gala-bay-area-2022/ https://yimbyaction.org/2021/events/yimby-prom-gala-bay-area...
Tuckerism 4y ago
I saw an interesting video from Kirsten Dirksen this past week taking a look at a company trying to tackle this with the drop-in ADU approach. That was the first I had heard about the rule changes in California about unblockable building additions to try and tackle the housing issues. Presented without particular knowledge or endorsement of what the company is saying (they obviously have a vested interest in their solution to the housing crisis). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnIJwj17hgo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnIJwj17hgo
BrainVirus 4y ago
A recent Peter Thiel video[1] has a great comment on this subject. If building 1% extra houses drops the cost of all remaining houses by 2%, would the city be really interested in increasing the supply? Especially if property is seen as investment first, place to live second. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=balGGAd6ZrI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=balGGAd6ZrI
- nemothekid 4y ago
  >If building 1% extra houses drops the cost of all remaining houses by 2%, would the city be really interested in increasing the supply? Do you have a timestamp? Surely Thiel isn't advocating for nationalizing housing, but the talk seems to devolve into wokeism? I imagine he's playing the crowd, but I can't get a read on what his actual solutions are.
  - BrainVirus 4y ago
    https://youtu.be/balGGAd6ZrI?t=802 https://youtu.be/balGGAd6ZrI?t=802
- rr888 4y ago
  > property is seen as investment first, place to live second I disagree with this, I think NIMBY attitudes is mainly about keeping the quality of live, they want to keep current housing and avoid apartments, more crowds etc. Development and more people increases the value of existing property.
- majormajor 4y ago
  Where has development dropped prices like that? The densest places in the US have some of the most expensive land and property values. Even if it's old and crumbling. People do development to increase the value of land. It's practically in the name. The core opposition to development is all about "character of the neighborhood" and resistance to change. The value of land in SF is more likely to go down if they drive too many people out, than if it becomes even denser and bustling.
buss 4y ago
The only way we'll fix this is by replacing the ideologues on the Board of Supervisors with forward-thinking leaders who want to grow the city, make it easier for businesses to open and operate. That's why we started GrowSF - we can fix San Francisco, but we have to act as a real voting bloc. Check us out at growsf.org
adam_arthur 4y ago
High valuations are also self fulfilling. Even if zoning is changed now, the price of the land will be very high on the basis of high residential property prices, which leads to higher breakeven price for sale (or rents) of newly constructed properties. It's too late to go back and fill in all those lots at 2000-2010 level prices. Still worth upzoning and fostering new development, but important to recognize bad policy can be compounding
- api 4y ago
  Hmm... so like a "lost decade" for a city.
Lammy 4y ago
Working as designed :/ https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/The_Negro_Travelers'_Green_Book_1954.pdf#page=13 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/The_Negr... "Though, the [Golden Gate and SF—Oakland Bay] bridges have contributed to their economic and social growth the neighboring communities resent becoming known as San Francisco’s bedrooms. Oakland which is California’s third largest city is in the same unfavorable position as New York City's Brooklyn. Industries and assembly plants have turned Oakland into a Western Detroit. Its outstanding symbol of activity is the Latham Square Building, headquarters for Henry Kaiser’s vast industrial empire. This city has the largest Negro population on the Pacific Coast." "San Francisco however, is fast becoming the focal point of the Negroes’ future. Before World War II this city had fewer than 5,000 Negroes. High war wages attracted these people from all over the country to this boom town. More than 45,000 Negroes are squeezed into two areas of, San Francisco today, with an estimated thirty-five percent unemployed." (1954) https://www.forbes.com/sites/priceonomics/2016/05/11/the-african-american-exodus-from-san-francisco/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/priceonomics/2016/05/11/the-afr... If current trends continue, a place that was once a center of African-American life will see that population vanish. (2016)
- kingkawn 4y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Black_Man_in_San_Francisco https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Black_Man_in_San_Fr...
- Redoubts 4y ago
  There's really no other way to read the intent of these policies except for this exact outcome. Black people have been leaving for 50 years straight, and yet people won't even bother to ask why.
major505 4y ago
ReasonTV made a video about the laundromat case a few years ago. The video is from 2018, is 2022 and still the same problem persists. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExgxwKnH8y4&t=60s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExgxwKnH8y4&t=60s You wnat to make affordable house? Increase the demand. Is not that hard.
- spaniard89277 4y ago
  You mean increase the offer.
  - rhacker 4y ago
    you mean increase the supply?
    - spaniard89277 4y ago
      watch your back
  - major505 4y ago
    Yes. I'm a idiot and I wrote it wrong.
photochemsyn 4y ago
A SF school district is trying to solve the teacher housing problem by asking families to rent out rooms in their homes to teachers... https://news.yahoo.com/san-francisco-families-asked-loan-162838304.html https://news.yahoo.com/san-francisco-families-asked-loan-162... So - prospective teachers are expected to go to college, get into debt, get a master's in education, then get a job where they still have to live the life of a broke college student. However, more market-rate housing won't solve the problem either, as teacher pay isn't enough to afford such housing. I suppose below-market housing could be reserved for teachers and other city employees, although then it has little impact on the size of the homeless population... It's all kind of dystopian.
- wmfrov 4y ago
  Depends on how much more market-rate housing is created, right? Create enough and the market rate goes down
- diebeforei485 4y ago
  That's Milpitas, not San Francisco.
  - ROTMetro 4y ago
    But it won't have the Milpitas monster to worry about! https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073393/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073393/
- elgenie 4y ago
  It's a game of musical chairs; there's no solution to 40 years of a multi-thousand annual shortfall in new units that doesn't involve building those units or otherwise making the equivalent housing capacity available.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  The idea is that construction barriers are removed so that the normal housing market is cheap enough for teachers to afford. As in, enough housing is built so that a teacher can just browse craiglist and find housing they can afford.
linuxftw 4y ago
There's simply no more room for people in San Francisco. More housing will only cause more problems, the rest of the infrastructure in the city isn't going to scale.
- spaniard89277 4y ago
  Other parts of the world apparently can live with much more density.
- raldi 4y ago
  …said people in 1870
- samatman 4y ago
  The 1.7 million people in Manhattan's 37 square miles would like a word.
- ketralnis 4y ago
  San Francisco is about as space-constrained as Manhattan but is significantly less dense
  - lokar 4y ago
    Most of SF is less dense then Brooklyn
- MisterSandman 4y ago
  "there is not enough room" is never a good enough excuse in city planning.
robomartin 4y ago
I don't know about SFO. I can say from painful personal experience that, if it is worse than LA County --which is a nightmare-- I cannot imagine building anything in SFO. In one of my projects the plan-checker got into a fight with the civil engineering firm I hired over the method used to calculate static and wind loads on a structure. I had done all of this work myself --including running FEA simulations. However, because I am not a Civil Engineer, I had to hire a firm to, effectively, duplicate my work. Physics is physics, right? That's OK. No problem. The issue was that the plan-checker did not like the method the civil engineering firm used to do the math. He called it the "European" method. This was a US civil engineering firm bonded for operation on all 50 states, BTW. What was absolutely perplexing to witness and endure was that the numbers were correct. My numbers, the civil engineering company's numbers and the non-European method (whatever that means) numbers were the same (within the margin of error). The plan checker (a Civil Engineer) knew this. The results were the same. He just wanted it done his way. That cost me weeks and thousands of dollars. The problem with these people is that they have an incredible amount of power. One cannot challenge this power without being willing to delay a project for months or years and incur thousand, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) in costs. It is as close as one can get to dealing with a totalitarian regime within a free society. The same permit office forced me to install 64000 lbs. of concrete as the footings for my ground-mounted 13 kW solar array. An architect friend of mine told me those footings can support a four-story building. There was no way to have that decision reversed. I tried. It cost me a couple of months and tens of thousands of dollars. Building safety and zoning regulations are most-definitely important. However, there needs to be a mechanism in place to ensure there's fairness in the system all-around. I don't want unsafe buildings anywhere around me. I also want construction projects to be able to execute on reasonable timelines and at the lowest possible cost; one that is not inflated by bureaucracy and, yes, incompetence.
- theflipside000 4y ago
  > I also want construction projects to be able to execute on reasonable timelines and at the lowest possible cost; one that is not inflated by bureaucracy and, yes, incompetence. As a resident of San Francisco I complete sympathize and mostly agree with your position. That said I don't think you can comprehend how broke and cheap the landlords are here in San Francisco. 50+ year old buildings that are all crumbling. They pay absolute nincompoops to keep everything standing and not more. Literal illiterates. The maximum action I've seen taken against these people is like, a $900 permit fine. Maybe once out of every 100 unpermitted repairs / modifications / works. > bureaucracy... He just wanted it done his way. The majorities in LA and SF communities where development is economical are not aligned culturally with you and me. I don't totally understand why "they" are excused from following the rules. I don't know why Prop 13 ensures they pay 1/20th the property taxes you do and I eventually will (I am a renter). I can't comprehend why we tolerate how people in these communities use old people and children to maximize their compulsory buyout payments when someone else moves into the home a person with whom they share a cultural affinity is selling. Somehow these same people have fucked up the compact that people in the Mission could send their kids to Presidio schools. A 10 year law that would have made it reasonable for me to permanently live here, now reversed. They're just so god damned stupid. Eventually people will crack and figure out whom to point the finger at.
greenie_beans 4y ago
here's some more research about this: https://www.landuseinsights.org/cities/san-francisco/ https://www.landuseinsights.org/cities/san-francisco/
rr888 4y ago
I dont understand the problem. The Bay Area already has 8 million people. Its busy already and water supply is limited. The residents have voted and agreed to limit development, keep the city as it is. This is democracy in action. If you want development and/or high density living, move to other locations or NY or Texas or Florida.
- betaby 4y ago
  Well, it's not hard to understand. Let me give you an example. About 3 years ago government used eminent domain and demolished two rows of townhouses to expand a highway. 'residents have voted and agreed' is not a democracy example I'm afraid.
- opportune 4y ago
  I am a resident of SF and disagree with the current policy. The only way to fix it is for residents who care about development to convince others. Democracy only works if there is discourse, otherwise nothing would change Also, in SF we have more than enough water. Maybe you are thinking of Southern California more than 300 miles away?
  - erik_seaberg 4y ago
    They announced “To help extend our water supplies, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission declared a Water Shortage Emergency in November 2021. The action calls for a 11% reduction in water use across our regional system.” https://sfpuc.org/learning/conserve-water/we-are-drought https://sfpuc.org/learning/conserve-water/we-are-drought
- grahamplace 4y ago
  > This is democracy in action One challenge in YIMBY-oriented organizing is that "future residents" who would benefit most from new developments have no political power to wield in order to get them approved — because they don't live there yet — because they can't, since there is not housing for them
  - 4y ago
legitster 4y ago
I know people want to preserve the "San Francisco-iness" of SF, but the irony of refusing to upzone is that it makes the entire city feel more inhumane and artificial. We don't do a good enough job on messaging that upzoning will actually do more to preserve your neighborhood than outright bans. If you actually upzone urban core areas, there will be less traffic and pressure on outlying areas.
worik 4y ago
"Free market capitalism" along with "democracy" Protect the value of your own property Use the bureaucratic state to achieve your ends I have no idea of what the end game is, but the dilution of property rights, and the democratic right to protest, is necessary. In New Zealand a lwa has been passed that means that in almost every case in the three biggest cities building three story apartment buildings is a right, not a privilege. City councils are not pleased, and time will tell how it works out

212 points by jseliger 4y ago

I spent a solid week in the planning office trying to get a permit to build a deck on my property. After visiting five desks, redrawing plans every night to fix their absurd nits at the final window the lady pushed the plans back across the desk. “I just don’t like the professionalism of these drawing.” Drawings were made by a contractor with 20 years experience. You know why housing doesn’t get built in San Francisco? That office. 100% of the problem.

newswasboring 4y ago
What does that even mean? Were the plans too professional or not professional enough?
s5300 4y ago
I think mobsters used to kill people like this.
- hahaxdxd123 4y ago
  In some cities, these departments are the legacies of the mob.
- Elv13 4y ago
  There was a (government) public investigation / shame campaign a few years ago ago the construction industry in Montreal, Canada. One of the person who testified in exchange for not being jailed was "Mr. 3%", a member of the office who approve (public) construction projects. He took 3% of the project total cost (in bribes) from the top 30 contractors in exchange for making sure their permits requests never got in these artificial rejection loops. The bureaucracy, just like the old taxi industry, is about keeping smaller players out, not enforcing the codes.
  - kennend3 4y ago
    > The bureaucracy, just like the old taxi industry, is about keeping smaller players out, not enforcing the codes. See my post above.. it is also about feeding the bureaucracy itself as well. Some places (like where i live) actually go driving around looking for construction taking place so they can issue "stop work" orders and force you to get permits. they use these permits to ask for more federal/provincial money as they are 'growing'. They also grow the bureaucracy machine, which allows them to hire more people to drive around looking for lumber on your yard, to make you buy more permits...
  - notch656a 4y ago
    Honestly paying 3% to make sure your shit gets approved sounds great. It's kind of like dealing with a hooker instead of a wife -- at least you know exactly what it's going to cost after you leave. More corruption at this point would almost be a good thing. As things stand there's basically no personal incentive for inspectors to actually approve projects.
    - Elv13 4y ago
      It was 3% as long as you were part of the conspirator and make it extra painful to everybody else. What the conspirators wanted out of this was to control the number of players so they could limit supply and control rates. Paying people to do nothing while you wait for the permits is how you bankrupt small contractors.
beebeepka 4y ago
Sounds like their job is to not let you do anything. Smells like corruption, unless no one is allowed to build anything which I doubt but could be wrong about
alephnerd 4y ago
This is a good overview of the dysfunction of the DBI - https://missionlocal.org/2021/02/san-francisco-department-of-building-inspection-deputy-director-iii/ https://missionlocal.org/2021/02/san-francisco-department-of...
ed25519FUUU 4y ago
Imagine a candidate saying he/she was going to fire 90% of the planning office and end environment and community impact studies. Do you think that candidate will succeed with SF’s voters?
nerfhammer 4y ago
you obviously should have hired the services of a "permit expediter" which is totally not a legal form of bribery
jonny_eh 4y ago
She was likely expecting a bribe.
diebeforei485 4y ago
The fact that they use paper and not digital drawings is part of how they keep the corruption going.
testfoobar 4y ago
In some countries, this might be corruption, directing business to "preferred" vendors, or it by straight up bribe seeking actions. In SF and around the bay, it seems to be straight up we don't want to build in our city, so go away.
- idontpost 4y ago
  Even in SF that was straight up solicitation for a bribe.
kennend3 4y ago
I live in a small town in Ontario just outside Toronto and this problem is GLOBAL. I did a walkout basement years ago, the f'ing building inspector came to my house every single day. It got to the point he was stopping by for lunch simply to abuse my wife's hospitality. we had enough and finally asked him what he wants. He basically told us to call the city and tell them what a great job he was doing. We did this just to get rid of him. I dont think the government has any clue what the lower level people are actually doing. It isnt about "building permits" but government empire building and control.
opportune 4y ago
https://missionlocal.org/2020/03/department-of-building-inspection-head-tom-hui-suspended-allegations-of-wrongdoing-stretching-back-to-2011-uncovered-during-city-attorney-probe-of-mohammed-nuru/ https://missionlocal.org/2020/03/department-of-building-insp... Ironically some people complained about Hui from the perspective of opposing development (signing off on things he shouldn’t have). But it’s two sides of the same coin - making housing so hard to build is what creates the market for “expediters” and the opportunity for corruption in the housing bureaucracy
thebradbain 4y ago
This is why in Los Angeles I've noticed there's so much un-permitted work done without anyone batting an eye. That's also why you have so many un-permitted ADUs in this city complete with plumbing and electrical. Fence higher than 6 feet? That's technically against the law and you need a special permit, but no one cares and contractors will build without one. We're talking about LA, where concrete walls over 10 feet around homes are common. Pouring more than 30 square feet of concrete, or replacing a driveway? You need a permit. But guess what, yup, contractors will do that without batting an eye. Replacing a sink or toilet? Yup, you need a permit. Installing a built-in book shelf that technically takes away square footage? You need a permit. New windows? Permit! New showerhead, that's a permit too – yes, actually. And all of these have fees (some of which are more than the cost of the change), inspections, and will be factored into the tax assessment. These are requirements for both single family homes and multi-family developments. While LA has no shortage of laws on the books, I'm thankful that at least compared to San Francisco contractors have no hesitation cutting right through it. It might have to do with the fact that unlike SF, LA has the space to keep things out of site from overly-nosy neighbors.

the_snooze 4y ago

For such a "progressive" city, San Francisco sure is against progress.

lostgame 4y ago
San Fransisco is the epitome of visually seeing what is so messed up about our current breed of Capitalism. Orlando was very similar when I lived there - with Disney World literally on the other side of the highway from extremely derelict project housing. I would drive through I-437 and just shake my head in sadness. It's an eerie reminder of how fragile life is and how little we collectively care about solving these problems above making money for our individual selves.
- jsnk 4y ago
  I fail to see how the housing issue in SF and the issue you mentioned in Orlando is related to capitalism. I think people with capital would love to develop housing in SF which would ease the housing problem in SF. In fact, people with capital really are the only people that may be able to solve the housing problem in SF. And the reason why they can't do this is the local government. How is this some sort of problem with capitalism?
  - loudmax 4y ago
    People do what they can to prop up the value of the properties into which they've invested their capital. The last thing they want is competition in the property market, hence their support for local government rules to hinder development. This is capitalism shutting down the free market.
    - dmix 4y ago
      Capitalism is when you exploit government policy to exclude others people from a market, in order to make more money? Being incentivized to make money is not all it takes to make it capitalism. If the policy is a net-negative for the market as a whole then the market will work to get rid of the policy, because there will be more people excluded than benefit. The only reason it would stick around is if there are motivations excluding capital/market aspects, such as equity, altruism, and social good.

vondur 4y ago

San Francisco makes it hard to do any type of construction. Check JWZ's adventures in getting work done on the DNA lounge, it's crazy to read.

gnu8 4y ago
Do you have a link to one of his blog posts about this?
- vondur 4y ago
  I'd have to look, but it was during some contstruction they were doing in the pizza restaurant I believe. I don't want to post the link here as he has a redirect which ridicules HN users.... (edited for spelling)
- anp 4y ago
  I hadn’t been following their plumbing saga but seems pretty rough. EDIT: I had pasted a link but it seems that the author redirects HN traffic to something other than the intended content. The one I linked was the most recent post on DNA Lounge’s blog when I wrote this comment.
  - reportingsjr 4y ago
    Just a heads up, but jwz redirects links from hackernews to a page that isn't exactly safe for work.
    - anp 4y ago
      Ha! Learn something new every day.
- nerfhammer 4y ago
  FYI, jwz hates HN for whatever reason and redirects HN referers to shock sites
jonny_eh 4y ago

alephnerd 4y ago

This article is a good overview on why some of the dysfunction exists in the DBI - https://missionlocal.org/2021/02/san-francisco-department-of https://missionlocal.org/2021/02/san-francisco-department-of...

abeppu 4y ago

> And if his project was fully up to code but still denied—which would likely be illegal under another state law that bars arbitrary housing denials—he could sue all the way to a state judge and set a precedent. > So he set out to get the project denied at the Board of Supervisors so he could settle out his building rights in court > Knowing he was likely headed to court, Tillman refused to jump through the hoops normally required for getting a housing project off the ground in San Francisco. There are a lot of real issues here, but this article gives a skewed picture of the problems by focusing on a somewhat unusual example, in which the owner actively resisted the city's process with the intention of going to court. Tillman has done plenty of media and activism, and it seems his goal was not just to get the project approved in order to proceed, but to use the legal system to clarify developers rights more broadly. Whatever you think of that approach, I think "sue all the way to a state judge and set a precedent" was always going to be slow. UPDATE: to clarify, I'm in no way trying to defend the city's process, corrupt officials, etc. I just think the article could have illustrated the problems better by focusing on a project that took the typical approach and paid out X, was delayed Y years etc, rather than Tillman's more unusual strategy.

jeffbee 4y ago
The "approval process" was that city officials demanded he bribe local shakedown outfits. So of course he resisted it. The reason that Tillman is the only person to ever say no to the shakedown is that he isn't a developer, and he doesn't have other properties he wants to build, and he has no interest in maintaining a working relationship with the city.
- kcplate 4y ago
  > The reason that Tillman is the only person to ever say no to the shakedown is that he isn't a developer, and he doesn't have other properties he wants to build, and he has no interest in maintaining a working relationship with the city. Sounds to me like the perfect person to expose it for what it is.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
> There are a lot of real issues here, but this article gives a skewed picture of the problems by focusing on a somewhat unusual example, in which the owner actively resisted the city's process with the intention of going to court. The reason he can take the issue to court like this is because the city's "process" is illegal. > Tillman has done plenty of media and activism, and it seems his goal was not just to get the project approved in order to proceed, but to use the legal system to clarify developers rights more broadly. Good for him. > Whatever you think of that approach, I think "sue all the way to a state judge and set a precedent" was always going to be slow. Saying something is slow is meaningless if you don't compare it to something else. What avenue for reform in SF would be faster? The legal solution may not move as fast as anybody would like, but I think it will be faster than any idea anybody else might have (which seemingly mostly boils down to 'raise awareness' and 'fundraising for local politicians'.)

huevosabio 4y ago

If you think, as I do, that this is absurd join other like-minded people in San Francisco's 2022 YIMBY Prom Party: https://yimbyaction.org/2021/events/yimby-prom-gala-bay-area-2022/ https://yimbyaction.org/2021/events/yimby-prom-gala-bay-area... There will be drinks and appetizers, as well as the bulk of the Yimby and Yimby-adjacent people in the Bay Area. The funds raised go exactly to fight the type of cronyism and insanity that makes SF so ossified and housing impossible to build. (if you do buy tickets, write huevosabio as referral and DM me to meet there :))

nopenopenopeno 4y ago
FYI: When someone uses the term “YIMBY” all I hear is “LANDLORD” and I don’t think I am alone.
- TulliusCicero 4y ago
  That makes no sense. Landlords tend to be opposed to YIMBY's, because allowing for more housing makes for a more competitive housing market, rather than one in which landowners dominate.
  - nopenopenopeno 4y ago
    Why would landlords in the market with the highest demand prioritize fending off competition? The answer is they wouldn’t. You’re full of it. Landlords want to maximize profit from their property and when demand is soaring above supply, adding units is the way to do that so they are organizing to overturn laws that prevent them from doing so. There is a reason the tickets to this event cost $100+. This isn’t a working class movement lol. You are either stupid yourself or you’ve got a lot of nerve to act like others are, which is to say you certainly act like a landlord.
    - prottog 4y ago
      > Landlords want to maximize profit from their property and when demand is soaring above supply, adding units is the way to do that You're saying that as supply catches up to the soaring demand, profits will go up instead of down? There's a lot of name-calling in your post and not a lot of sense.

ed25519FUUU 4y ago

Everybody wants to build housing, but no bureaucrat wants to give up control to saying “yes” or “no” to projects. We need some radical anti-bureaucracy candidates, but there’s not good overlap with the local ideological demographic. Stalemate.

lazide 4y ago
Near as I can tell, it's due to radical ideological splits among the different power bases, and little in the way of shared culture/values. Some prominent ones being the Latinos, Chinese, Japanese, Tech, Finance, etc. blocs. The stakes are high enough and the blocs are big enough, it's easy to drive divisions between them and play them against each other. It lets someone who wants to point fingers at another group and fearmonger enough folks to block anything they don't want - and among the different blocs, there is no specific thing they all agree on. One classic recent example of this is Zoning for Marijuana dispensaries. For a long time post legalization, there literally were only 2 potential locations in SF you could get permitted to open one due to extreme school location distance requirements, driven partially by the Chinese bloc. [https://www.sfexaminer.com/the_fs/forum/conservative-chinese-push-for-sf-cannabis-ban-could-spark-serious-political-benefits/article_d0f843e7-75b3-5a57-b538-459b56142b64.html https://www.sfexaminer.com/the_fs/forum/conservative-chinese...] Even now, there are only ~42. [https://sfstandard.com/arts-culture/cannabis-lounge-map-marijuana-weed-dispensary-map-san-francisco/ https://sfstandard.com/arts-culture/cannabis-lounge-map-mari...] That is a ludicrously low number for a city of San Francisco's size, even if you don't know the history of San Francisco as one of the counter culture/weed cultures epicenters. Of course, during this entire time it was still easy to find weed - just not legally. There is a huge underground market that never stopped. And regardless of legality, there were no meaningful penalties except from the Feds (who have gotten a cold shoulder from SF for a VERY long time), as the local Police stopped enforcing anti-Marijuana rules consistently sometime in the 70s. California overall (and the US) is becoming more and more like San Francisco. It's like a cancer, as lack of belief in social institutions or a coherent social identity trends towards 'snitches get stitches' and 'fuck you, I got mine', which just enables predators.
huevosabio 4y ago
SF Yimby (Yimby Action chapter) [0] and GrowSF [1] are two orgs that constantly push for removing bureaucrats's discretionary power to say "yes" or "no" to projects. Yimby Action is having its main fundraising event [2] this October, if you want to meet other like minded people and push for a change (if you do, write huevosabio as your referral, I'll be there :)). [0] https://www.sfyimby.org/endorsements https://www.sfyimby.org/endorsements [1] https://growsf.org/voter-guide https://growsf.org/voter-guide [2] https://yimbyaction.org/2021/events/yimby-prom-gala-bay-area-2022/ https://yimbyaction.org/2021/events/yimby-prom-gala-bay-area...

Tuckerism 4y ago

I saw an interesting video from Kirsten Dirksen this past week taking a look at a company trying to tackle this with the drop-in ADU approach. That was the first I had heard about the rule changes in California about unblockable building additions to try and tackle the housing issues. Presented without particular knowledge or endorsement of what the company is saying (they obviously have a vested interest in their solution to the housing crisis). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnIJwj17hgo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnIJwj17hgo

BrainVirus 4y ago

A recent Peter Thiel video[1] has a great comment on this subject. If building 1% extra houses drops the cost of all remaining houses by 2%, would the city be really interested in increasing the supply? Especially if property is seen as investment first, place to live second. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=balGGAd6ZrI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=balGGAd6ZrI

nemothekid 4y ago
>If building 1% extra houses drops the cost of all remaining houses by 2%, would the city be really interested in increasing the supply? Do you have a timestamp? Surely Thiel isn't advocating for nationalizing housing, but the talk seems to devolve into wokeism? I imagine he's playing the crowd, but I can't get a read on what his actual solutions are.
- BrainVirus 4y ago
  https://youtu.be/balGGAd6ZrI?t=802 https://youtu.be/balGGAd6ZrI?t=802
rr888 4y ago
> property is seen as investment first, place to live second I disagree with this, I think NIMBY attitudes is mainly about keeping the quality of live, they want to keep current housing and avoid apartments, more crowds etc. Development and more people increases the value of existing property.
majormajor 4y ago
Where has development dropped prices like that? The densest places in the US have some of the most expensive land and property values. Even if it's old and crumbling. People do development to increase the value of land. It's practically in the name. The core opposition to development is all about "character of the neighborhood" and resistance to change. The value of land in SF is more likely to go down if they drive too many people out, than if it becomes even denser and bustling.

buss 4y ago

The only way we'll fix this is by replacing the ideologues on the Board of Supervisors with forward-thinking leaders who want to grow the city, make it easier for businesses to open and operate. That's why we started GrowSF - we can fix San Francisco, but we have to act as a real voting bloc. Check us out at growsf.org

adam_arthur 4y ago

High valuations are also self fulfilling. Even if zoning is changed now, the price of the land will be very high on the basis of high residential property prices, which leads to higher breakeven price for sale (or rents) of newly constructed properties. It's too late to go back and fill in all those lots at 2000-2010 level prices. Still worth upzoning and fostering new development, but important to recognize bad policy can be compounding

api 4y ago
Hmm... so like a "lost decade" for a city.

Lammy 4y ago

Working as designed :/ https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/The_Negro_Travelers'_Green_Book_1954.pdf#page=13 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/The_Negr... "Though, the [Golden Gate and SF—Oakland Bay] bridges have contributed to their economic and social growth the neighboring communities resent becoming known as San Francisco’s bedrooms. Oakland which is California’s third largest city is in the same unfavorable position as New York City's Brooklyn. Industries and assembly plants have turned Oakland into a Western Detroit. Its outstanding symbol of activity is the Latham Square Building, headquarters for Henry Kaiser’s vast industrial empire. This city has the largest Negro population on the Pacific Coast." "San Francisco however, is fast becoming the focal point of the Negroes’ future. Before World War II this city had fewer than 5,000 Negroes. High war wages attracted these people from all over the country to this boom town. More than 45,000 Negroes are squeezed into two areas of, San Francisco today, with an estimated thirty-five percent unemployed." (1954) https://www.forbes.com/sites/priceonomics/2016/05/11/the-african-american-exodus-from-san-francisco/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/priceonomics/2016/05/11/the-afr... If current trends continue, a place that was once a center of African-American life will see that population vanish. (2016)

kingkawn 4y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Black_Man_in_San_Francisco https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Black_Man_in_San_Fr...
Redoubts 4y ago
There's really no other way to read the intent of these policies except for this exact outcome. Black people have been leaving for 50 years straight, and yet people won't even bother to ask why.

major505 4y ago

ReasonTV made a video about the laundromat case a few years ago. The video is from 2018, is 2022 and still the same problem persists. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExgxwKnH8y4&t=60s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExgxwKnH8y4&t=60s You wnat to make affordable house? Increase the demand. Is not that hard.

spaniard89277 4y ago
You mean increase the offer.
- rhacker 4y ago
  you mean increase the supply?
  - spaniard89277 4y ago
    watch your back
- major505 4y ago
  Yes. I'm a idiot and I wrote it wrong.

photochemsyn 4y ago

A SF school district is trying to solve the teacher housing problem by asking families to rent out rooms in their homes to teachers... https://news.yahoo.com/san-francisco-families-asked-loan-162838304.html https://news.yahoo.com/san-francisco-families-asked-loan-162... So - prospective teachers are expected to go to college, get into debt, get a master's in education, then get a job where they still have to live the life of a broke college student. However, more market-rate housing won't solve the problem either, as teacher pay isn't enough to afford such housing. I suppose below-market housing could be reserved for teachers and other city employees, although then it has little impact on the size of the homeless population... It's all kind of dystopian.

wmfrov 4y ago
Depends on how much more market-rate housing is created, right? Create enough and the market rate goes down
diebeforei485 4y ago
That's Milpitas, not San Francisco.
- ROTMetro 4y ago
  But it won't have the Milpitas monster to worry about! https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073393/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073393/
elgenie 4y ago
It's a game of musical chairs; there's no solution to 40 years of a multi-thousand annual shortfall in new units that doesn't involve building those units or otherwise making the equivalent housing capacity available.
Manuel_D 4y ago
The idea is that construction barriers are removed so that the normal housing market is cheap enough for teachers to afford. As in, enough housing is built so that a teacher can just browse craiglist and find housing they can afford.

linuxftw 4y ago

There's simply no more room for people in San Francisco. More housing will only cause more problems, the rest of the infrastructure in the city isn't going to scale.

spaniard89277 4y ago
Other parts of the world apparently can live with much more density.
raldi 4y ago
…said people in 1870
samatman 4y ago
The 1.7 million people in Manhattan's 37 square miles would like a word.
ketralnis 4y ago
San Francisco is about as space-constrained as Manhattan but is significantly less dense
- lokar 4y ago
  Most of SF is less dense then Brooklyn
MisterSandman 4y ago
"there is not enough room" is never a good enough excuse in city planning.

robomartin 4y ago

I don't know about SFO. I can say from painful personal experience that, if it is worse than LA County --which is a nightmare-- I cannot imagine building anything in SFO. In one of my projects the plan-checker got into a fight with the civil engineering firm I hired over the method used to calculate static and wind loads on a structure. I had done all of this work myself --including running FEA simulations. However, because I am not a Civil Engineer, I had to hire a firm to, effectively, duplicate my work. Physics is physics, right? That's OK. No problem. The issue was that the plan-checker did not like the method the civil engineering firm used to do the math. He called it the "European" method. This was a US civil engineering firm bonded for operation on all 50 states, BTW. What was absolutely perplexing to witness and endure was that the numbers were correct. My numbers, the civil engineering company's numbers and the non-European method (whatever that means) numbers were the same (within the margin of error). The plan checker (a Civil Engineer) knew this. The results were the same. He just wanted it done his way. That cost me weeks and thousands of dollars. The problem with these people is that they have an incredible amount of power. One cannot challenge this power without being willing to delay a project for months or years and incur thousand, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) in costs. It is as close as one can get to dealing with a totalitarian regime within a free society. The same permit office forced me to install 64000 lbs. of concrete as the footings for my ground-mounted 13 kW solar array. An architect friend of mine told me those footings can support a four-story building. There was no way to have that decision reversed. I tried. It cost me a couple of months and tens of thousands of dollars. Building safety and zoning regulations are most-definitely important. However, there needs to be a mechanism in place to ensure there's fairness in the system all-around. I don't want unsafe buildings anywhere around me. I also want construction projects to be able to execute on reasonable timelines and at the lowest possible cost; one that is not inflated by bureaucracy and, yes, incompetence.

theflipside000 4y ago
> I also want construction projects to be able to execute on reasonable timelines and at the lowest possible cost; one that is not inflated by bureaucracy and, yes, incompetence. As a resident of San Francisco I complete sympathize and mostly agree with your position. That said I don't think you can comprehend how broke and cheap the landlords are here in San Francisco. 50+ year old buildings that are all crumbling. They pay absolute nincompoops to keep everything standing and not more. Literal illiterates. The maximum action I've seen taken against these people is like, a $900 permit fine. Maybe once out of every 100 unpermitted repairs / modifications / works. > bureaucracy... He just wanted it done his way. The majorities in LA and SF communities where development is economical are not aligned culturally with you and me. I don't totally understand why "they" are excused from following the rules. I don't know why Prop 13 ensures they pay 1/20th the property taxes you do and I eventually will (I am a renter). I can't comprehend why we tolerate how people in these communities use old people and children to maximize their compulsory buyout payments when someone else moves into the home a person with whom they share a cultural affinity is selling. Somehow these same people have fucked up the compact that people in the Mission could send their kids to Presidio schools. A 10 year law that would have made it reasonable for me to permanently live here, now reversed. They're just so god damned stupid. Eventually people will crack and figure out whom to point the finger at.

greenie_beans 4y ago

here's some more research about this: https://www.landuseinsights.org/cities/san-francisco/ https://www.landuseinsights.org/cities/san-francisco/

rr888 4y ago

I dont understand the problem. The Bay Area already has 8 million people. Its busy already and water supply is limited. The residents have voted and agreed to limit development, keep the city as it is. This is democracy in action. If you want development and/or high density living, move to other locations or NY or Texas or Florida.

betaby 4y ago
Well, it's not hard to understand. Let me give you an example. About 3 years ago government used eminent domain and demolished two rows of townhouses to expand a highway. 'residents have voted and agreed' is not a democracy example I'm afraid.
opportune 4y ago
I am a resident of SF and disagree with the current policy. The only way to fix it is for residents who care about development to convince others. Democracy only works if there is discourse, otherwise nothing would change Also, in SF we have more than enough water. Maybe you are thinking of Southern California more than 300 miles away?
- erik_seaberg 4y ago
  They announced “To help extend our water supplies, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission declared a Water Shortage Emergency in November 2021. The action calls for a 11% reduction in water use across our regional system.” https://sfpuc.org/learning/conserve-water/we-are-drought https://sfpuc.org/learning/conserve-water/we-are-drought
grahamplace 4y ago
> This is democracy in action One challenge in YIMBY-oriented organizing is that "future residents" who would benefit most from new developments have no political power to wield in order to get them approved — because they don't live there yet — because they can't, since there is not housing for them
- 4y ago

legitster 4y ago

I know people want to preserve the "San Francisco-iness" of SF, but the irony of refusing to upzone is that it makes the entire city feel more inhumane and artificial. We don't do a good enough job on messaging that upzoning will actually do more to preserve your neighborhood than outright bans. If you actually upzone urban core areas, there will be less traffic and pressure on outlying areas.

worik 4y ago

"Free market capitalism" along with "democracy" Protect the value of your own property Use the bureaucratic state to achieve your ends I have no idea of what the end game is, but the dilution of property rights, and the democratic right to protest, is necessary. In New Zealand a lwa has been passed that means that in almost every case in the three biggest cities building three story apartment buildings is a right, not a privilege. City councils are not pleased, and time will tell how it works out