4 ms·

> 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 su

by 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'.)
- AtlasBarfed 4y ago
  Yeah, I'm no lawyer, but there are many many cases of court orders leading what would otherwise be monumentally long legislative actions. Slavery, voting rights, eminent domain, asset forfeiture, and tons of others. Housing isn't in the bill of rights directly, but equal protection is. Basically, SF housing comes down to a battle of: - I have a right to defend my housing equity/wealth (currently winning and will continue to win legislatively because the money is here) - I have a right to a house (the moral choice, but far and away the less-monied, and therefore zero chance of legislative redress) It isn't just SF, this is fundamentally a generational war across the entire US, practically everywhere.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    It’s more a fight between “I want my area to stay the same” and “I want to develop my property” - those wanting housing have effectively no say at all.
    - yonran 4y ago
      > those wanting housing have effectively no say at all. One of the points that William Fischel makes in Zoning Rules! is that when a developer responds to the profit motive from the market, he is representing the interests of future tenants who need housing. Conversely, when San Francisco Leftists oppose developments because they oppose developers making a profit, they are unwittingly opposing the interests of future tenants. This is part of what makes housing in San Francisco such an unsolved problem: those who claim to represent tenants seeking affordable housing (such as the trade group CCHO) actively fight private development.
ch4s3 4y ago
> in which the owner actively resisted the city's process Resisted the city's ILLEGAL(under state law) process.
google234123 4y ago
What you are doing here is a form of victim blaming.
- abeppu 4y ago
  I'm not blaming Tillman. My criticism is with the article author Sarah wright. I'm suggesting that the article could have picked a different, more representative project if it wanted to point out the obstacles to development. As the stats in the article show, the _average_ case is already very bad. Most projects don't become the target of this much focused attention from community groups. Most projects don't "set out to get the project denied at the Board of Supervisors".

by abeppu 4y ago

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'.)

AtlasBarfed 4y ago
Yeah, I'm no lawyer, but there are many many cases of court orders leading what would otherwise be monumentally long legislative actions. Slavery, voting rights, eminent domain, asset forfeiture, and tons of others. Housing isn't in the bill of rights directly, but equal protection is. Basically, SF housing comes down to a battle of: - I have a right to defend my housing equity/wealth (currently winning and will continue to win legislatively because the money is here) - I have a right to a house (the moral choice, but far and away the less-monied, and therefore zero chance of legislative redress) It isn't just SF, this is fundamentally a generational war across the entire US, practically everywhere.
- bombcar 4y ago
  It’s more a fight between “I want my area to stay the same” and “I want to develop my property” - those wanting housing have effectively no say at all.
  - yonran 4y ago
    > those wanting housing have effectively no say at all. One of the points that William Fischel makes in Zoning Rules! is that when a developer responds to the profit motive from the market, he is representing the interests of future tenants who need housing. Conversely, when San Francisco Leftists oppose developments because they oppose developers making a profit, they are unwittingly opposing the interests of future tenants. This is part of what makes housing in San Francisco such an unsolved problem: those who claim to represent tenants seeking affordable housing (such as the trade group CCHO) actively fight private development.

ch4s3 4y ago

> in which the owner actively resisted the city's process Resisted the city's ILLEGAL(under state law) process.

google234123 4y ago

What you are doing here is a form of victim blaming.

abeppu 4y ago
I'm not blaming Tillman. My criticism is with the article author Sarah wright. I'm suggesting that the article could have picked a different, more representative project if it wanted to point out the obstacles to development. As the stats in the article show, the _average_ case is already very bad. Most projects don't become the target of this much focused attention from community groups. Most projects don't "set out to get the project denied at the Board of Supervisors".