9 ms·

California slams San Francisco for 'egregious' barriers to housing construction

91 points by jameslk 3y ago

oldbbsnickname 3y ago
Hey SF leadership, it's only been 12 years... sigh. Do I need to come back down there and demonstrate how I point my index finger in the air? Don't worry, I'm not running for POTUS and using this as an opportunity to throw you under the bus as a political calculus.
zacksiri 3y ago
Archive link: https://archive.is/QWY6V https://archive.is/QWY6V
kqr2 3y ago
Official announcement from the State: https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/10/25/state-releases-accountability-report-on-san-franciscos-housing-policies-and-practices/ https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/10/25/state-releases-accountabil... At its current pace, SF would take 263 years to meet 2031 housing goal: https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/housing/at-current-permit-pace-sf-needs-263-years-to-meet-housing-element/article_46c99b4e-51a6-11ee-a426-8fb22f94f967.html https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/housing/at-current-permit-pa...
- Justin_K 3y ago
  Doesn't anybody feel that the state requirements are unreasonable? With SF as dense as it is, I don't think they should build more housing.
  - sroussey 3y ago
    So much of SF is single family homes…
    - neuronerdgirl 3y ago
      People see FIDI and think that level of density is happening in Pac Heights or Sunset and don't realize how thin things get once you get out of the main downtown strip.
      - kjkjadksj 3y ago
        Californian cities would look like south american cities like sao paolo or medellin today if they actually built for demand from job growth.
  - umeshunni 3y ago
    The Sunset, Richmond district etc are just miles and miles of low rise apartments and single family homes. Imagine building 40 story towers in those neighborhoods. https://preview.redd.it/cgbziy5nq6a91.jpg?width=3000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fb7ace4b337e666d0e9ffa62cd16211e47ad3159 https://preview.redd.it/cgbziy5nq6a91.jpg?width=3000&format=...
thereisnospork 3y ago
San Francisco doesn't build houses because San Francisco doesn't want houses to be built. Nothing is going to change until San Francisco (et. al) are no longer allowed to prevent houses from being built.
- umeshunni 3y ago
  Being San Francisco, they'll just create some more taxes and then virtue signal for some unrelated cause halfway around the world.
- almost_usual 3y ago
  The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has teeth now. > The City’s failure to implement the Required Actions will result in HCD initiating the process to revoke housing element compliance. Various consequences may apply if the City does not have a housing element in compliance with Housing Element Law, including ineligibility or delay in receiving certain state funds, referral to the California Office of the Attorney General, court-imposed financial penalties, the loss of local land use authority to a court-appointed agent, and the application of the “builder’s remedy.” https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/policy-and-research/plan-report/sf-housing-policy-and-practice-review.pdf https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/policy-and-r...
tomohelix 3y ago
I don't know why a second house or something like that is not being taxed to the ground in California. Like Prop13 was meant to keep seniors from being evicted from their own homes? Sure, that is the primary residence. But what are they doing with the second or third house? That is clearly an economic investment. Get taxed. Tax those extra houses harder to the point even corporates and landlords feel the heat of profiting off of homes. I don't know why it isn't done. Cali always want raise tax on the middle class but those landowners somehow aren't getting the book thrown at them.
- umeshunni 3y ago
  How does taxing existing housing magically create new houses to solve the housing crisis?
  - zjp 3y ago
    Long-term renting is just not recognized as legitimate housing in America. We are all temporarily embarrassed homeowners.
    - prepend 3y ago
      It is recognized. But I think the goal is that 90% of people should be homeowners and getting people there. For the vast majority of people, owning a home is superior to renting. So I think most home policy is in getting people able to purchase, own, and sustain their own home. Certainly, some people’s situation makes rent better, but it’s much smaller than people who should buy. But it’s too expensive to buy for too many people. I don’t think someone should be embarrassed, but it’s not like the goal here is to get more people renting and fewer owning.
      - mistrial9 3y ago
        > the goal is that 90% of people should be homeowners yeah right - info welcome from those that read giant books on the 2008 credit events.. one thread in that is that it was a clumsy and heavy-handed, politics-origin set of decisions to make "sub-prime" mortgage rates available widely, in order to move the homeownership rates in the general population from sixty-something percent to the glory-lands of ninety-something percent. Well, in fact lending policy at scale did not do that, and as a side-effect the entire US and possible dollar-based credit system cracked at the base. The strongest economy in the world, actually almost did choke on credit. Meanwhile, a recent study echoed here on YNews said that "A million homes are being kept empty while housing costs soar" WSJ . How does one reconcile this?
ActorNightly 3y ago
This is the wrong way of looking at the problem. What needs to happen is a federal government problem of assistance in finding a job and relocation. Those are 2 "artificial" blocks from preventing people who are barely scraping buy in those areas to move to a cheaper COL area. 1. You can't do an in person interview or even a phone interview for a job in that area if you are expected to be at work during the day, and cant miss days 2. Traveling is expensive. Moving even more so. Reduce the cost of those things to zero and few things happen. Companies get access to a wider pool of candidates for free, which they will take advantage of. This will improve the rate of economic growth in remote areas . Areas like SF will quickly start declining due to "essential" workers leaving - nurses, restaurant workers, retail, construction e.t.c. Majority of those people dont care about where they live, and will optimize for salary/col ratio, considering they can find their respective job in a lot more places. This will directly and effectively worsen the NIMBY's lives, which is the best way to get someone to change their mind. Government officials will be up for reelection, so they will absolutely have to cater to immediate demands. Best part is, the people will start selling their houses and moving as well, which will drive down the cost of housing quite a bit. Also, this necessarily will increase demand for automation, which is a good thing.
- donatj 3y ago
  I think it’s even more direct than you make it. When the everyday workers leave, the place becomes much less livable and the housing prices drop.
  - imglorp 3y ago
    That's the Detroit method if taken too far. The trick is to fix the problem before everyone leaves.
7e 3y ago
San Franciscans are pretty happy with San Francisco the way it is. After 250 years of building, it is, frankly, full. Worsening the city in the name of encouraging population growth and migration isn’t a goal that should be pursued. It’s bad for the planet, and bad for SF. In fact, San Francisco's city and county population shrank just over 7% from July 2020 to July 2022, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. That’s a good trend.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- almost_usual 3y ago
  It’s not up to San Francisco anymore, the state of California is mandating it. > The City’s failure to implement the Required Actions will result in HCD initiating the process to revoke housing element compliance. Various consequences may apply if the City does not have a housing element in compliance with Housing Element Law, including ineligibility or delay in receiving certain state funds, referral to the California Office of the Attorney General, court-imposed financial penalties, the loss of local land use authority to a court-appointed agent, and the application of the “builder’s remedy.” https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/policy-and-research/plan-report/sf-housing-policy-and-practice-review.pdf https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/policy-and-r...
- thecopy 3y ago
  It is bad for... _the planet_? How convenient :)
  - strikelaserclaw 3y ago
    hiding behind "vague" environmental factors, the California way, even though high density cities with good public transit are better for the environment
- mablopoule 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
almost_usual 3y ago
The official California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) report. > The City’s failure to implement the Required Actions will result in HCD initiating the process to revoke housing element compliance. Various consequences may apply if the City does not have a housing element in compliance with Housing Element Law, including ineligibility or delay in receiving certain state funds, referral to the California Office of the Attorney General, court-imposed financial penalties, the loss of local land use authority to a court-appointed agent, and the application of the “builder’s remedy.” https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/policy-and-research/plan-report/sf-housing-policy-and-practice-review.pdf https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/policy-and-r...
tgpc 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show_Me_a_Hero https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show_Me_a_Hero
BaculumMeumEst 3y ago
I don't understand why the government has to be involved here. I was born in the area and it was lovely, but my parents left after my dad graduated in part because it was much more affordable to live in other parts of the country. If SF property owners, who pay the high property taxes that fund the city don't want more housing built, why is it right for the government to come in and tell them to do it anyway? Why is it that the property owners must be the ones who have to deal with the area they fund being changed in ways they don't want, rather than people who can't afford to live there finding something within their means as my parents did?
- Panzer04 3y ago
  Because they are abusing the auspices of government to block other citizens from building what they want? It'd be one thing if they owned everything and weren't selling, but instead you have some landowners campaigning to prevent anyone else from building stuff. You seem to be under the impression that owning land in a municipality gives you the right to make decisions that affect other owners. A developer can't build what they want because a few other people object to "shade"? You can't respect the wishes of everyone like that.
- kansface 3y ago
  California loses substantial tax revenue due to the issue. No city wants local growth (prisoners dilemma), but the state sure does and it is the decider.
  - kjkjadksj 3y ago
    Cities also benefit from local growth. More people means more funding for local schools and roads and everything else that makes a city a city. What has happened in recent years however is that local elected city leaders do not think in terms of the best interests for the collective. They think in terms of keeping their jobs, bending over backwards towards those who donate and vote in these local elections. A demographic that is by and large older, whiter, richer, more conservative, and more likely to be an existing homeowner, who in California stands to benefit from exponential increases in real estate values on top of a fixed tax rate based on their purchase price vs current valuations.
TheGigaChad 3y ago
[dead]
supportengineer 3y ago
Is there any place in California that doesn’t fight building?
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  Anywhere in california if what you are doing is converting farmland to suburban tract housing. Its at the next rung of density where most of the challenges lie.

91 points by jameslk 3y ago

Hey SF leadership, it's only been 12 years... sigh. Do I need to come back down there and demonstrate how I point my index finger in the air? Don't worry, I'm not running for POTUS and using this as an opportunity to throw you under the bus as a political calculus.

zacksiri 3y ago

Archive link: https://archive.is/QWY6V https://archive.is/QWY6V

kqr2 3y ago

Official announcement from the State: https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/10/25/state-releases-accountability-report-on-san-franciscos-housing-policies-and-practices/ https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/10/25/state-releases-accountabil... At its current pace, SF would take 263 years to meet 2031 housing goal: https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/housing/at-current-permit-pace-sf-needs-263-years-to-meet-housing-element/article_46c99b4e-51a6-11ee-a426-8fb22f94f967.html https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/housing/at-current-permit-pa...

Justin_K 3y ago
Doesn't anybody feel that the state requirements are unreasonable? With SF as dense as it is, I don't think they should build more housing.
- sroussey 3y ago
  So much of SF is single family homes…
  - neuronerdgirl 3y ago
    People see FIDI and think that level of density is happening in Pac Heights or Sunset and don't realize how thin things get once you get out of the main downtown strip.
    - kjkjadksj 3y ago
      Californian cities would look like south american cities like sao paolo or medellin today if they actually built for demand from job growth.
- umeshunni 3y ago
  The Sunset, Richmond district etc are just miles and miles of low rise apartments and single family homes. Imagine building 40 story towers in those neighborhoods. https://preview.redd.it/cgbziy5nq6a91.jpg?width=3000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fb7ace4b337e666d0e9ffa62cd16211e47ad3159 https://preview.redd.it/cgbziy5nq6a91.jpg?width=3000&format=...

thereisnospork 3y ago

San Francisco doesn't build houses because San Francisco doesn't want houses to be built. Nothing is going to change until San Francisco (et. al) are no longer allowed to prevent houses from being built.

umeshunni 3y ago
Being San Francisco, they'll just create some more taxes and then virtue signal for some unrelated cause halfway around the world.
almost_usual 3y ago
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has teeth now. > The City’s failure to implement the Required Actions will result in HCD initiating the process to revoke housing element compliance. Various consequences may apply if the City does not have a housing element in compliance with Housing Element Law, including ineligibility or delay in receiving certain state funds, referral to the California Office of the Attorney General, court-imposed financial penalties, the loss of local land use authority to a court-appointed agent, and the application of the “builder’s remedy.” https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/policy-and-research/plan-report/sf-housing-policy-and-practice-review.pdf https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/policy-and-r...

tomohelix 3y ago

I don't know why a second house or something like that is not being taxed to the ground in California. Like Prop13 was meant to keep seniors from being evicted from their own homes? Sure, that is the primary residence. But what are they doing with the second or third house? That is clearly an economic investment. Get taxed. Tax those extra houses harder to the point even corporates and landlords feel the heat of profiting off of homes. I don't know why it isn't done. Cali always want raise tax on the middle class but those landowners somehow aren't getting the book thrown at them.

umeshunni 3y ago
How does taxing existing housing magically create new houses to solve the housing crisis?
- zjp 3y ago
  Long-term renting is just not recognized as legitimate housing in America. We are all temporarily embarrassed homeowners.
  - prepend 3y ago
    It is recognized. But I think the goal is that 90% of people should be homeowners and getting people there. For the vast majority of people, owning a home is superior to renting. So I think most home policy is in getting people able to purchase, own, and sustain their own home. Certainly, some people’s situation makes rent better, but it’s much smaller than people who should buy. But it’s too expensive to buy for too many people. I don’t think someone should be embarrassed, but it’s not like the goal here is to get more people renting and fewer owning.
    - mistrial9 3y ago
      > the goal is that 90% of people should be homeowners yeah right - info welcome from those that read giant books on the 2008 credit events.. one thread in that is that it was a clumsy and heavy-handed, politics-origin set of decisions to make "sub-prime" mortgage rates available widely, in order to move the homeownership rates in the general population from sixty-something percent to the glory-lands of ninety-something percent. Well, in fact lending policy at scale did not do that, and as a side-effect the entire US and possible dollar-based credit system cracked at the base. The strongest economy in the world, actually almost did choke on credit. Meanwhile, a recent study echoed here on YNews said that "A million homes are being kept empty while housing costs soar" WSJ . How does one reconcile this?

ActorNightly 3y ago

This is the wrong way of looking at the problem. What needs to happen is a federal government problem of assistance in finding a job and relocation. Those are 2 "artificial" blocks from preventing people who are barely scraping buy in those areas to move to a cheaper COL area. 1. You can't do an in person interview or even a phone interview for a job in that area if you are expected to be at work during the day, and cant miss days 2. Traveling is expensive. Moving even more so. Reduce the cost of those things to zero and few things happen. Companies get access to a wider pool of candidates for free, which they will take advantage of. This will improve the rate of economic growth in remote areas . Areas like SF will quickly start declining due to "essential" workers leaving - nurses, restaurant workers, retail, construction e.t.c. Majority of those people dont care about where they live, and will optimize for salary/col ratio, considering they can find their respective job in a lot more places. This will directly and effectively worsen the NIMBY's lives, which is the best way to get someone to change their mind. Government officials will be up for reelection, so they will absolutely have to cater to immediate demands. Best part is, the people will start selling their houses and moving as well, which will drive down the cost of housing quite a bit. Also, this necessarily will increase demand for automation, which is a good thing.

donatj 3y ago
I think it’s even more direct than you make it. When the everyday workers leave, the place becomes much less livable and the housing prices drop.
- imglorp 3y ago
  That's the Detroit method if taken too far. The trick is to fix the problem before everyone leaves.

7e 3y ago

San Franciscans are pretty happy with San Francisco the way it is. After 250 years of building, it is, frankly, full. Worsening the city in the name of encouraging population growth and migration isn’t a goal that should be pursued. It’s bad for the planet, and bad for SF. In fact, San Francisco's city and county population shrank just over 7% from July 2020 to July 2022, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. That’s a good trend.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
almost_usual 3y ago
It’s not up to San Francisco anymore, the state of California is mandating it. > The City’s failure to implement the Required Actions will result in HCD initiating the process to revoke housing element compliance. Various consequences may apply if the City does not have a housing element in compliance with Housing Element Law, including ineligibility or delay in receiving certain state funds, referral to the California Office of the Attorney General, court-imposed financial penalties, the loss of local land use authority to a court-appointed agent, and the application of the “builder’s remedy.” https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/policy-and-research/plan-report/sf-housing-policy-and-practice-review.pdf https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/policy-and-r...
thecopy 3y ago
It is bad for... _the planet_? How convenient :)
- strikelaserclaw 3y ago
  hiding behind "vague" environmental factors, the California way, even though high density cities with good public transit are better for the environment
mablopoule 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

almost_usual 3y ago

The official California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) report. > The City’s failure to implement the Required Actions will result in HCD initiating the process to revoke housing element compliance. Various consequences may apply if the City does not have a housing element in compliance with Housing Element Law, including ineligibility or delay in receiving certain state funds, referral to the California Office of the Attorney General, court-imposed financial penalties, the loss of local land use authority to a court-appointed agent, and the application of the “builder’s remedy.” https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/policy-and-research/plan-report/sf-housing-policy-and-practice-review.pdf https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/policy-and-r...

tgpc 3y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show_Me_a_Hero https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show_Me_a_Hero

BaculumMeumEst 3y ago

I don't understand why the government has to be involved here. I was born in the area and it was lovely, but my parents left after my dad graduated in part because it was much more affordable to live in other parts of the country. If SF property owners, who pay the high property taxes that fund the city don't want more housing built, why is it right for the government to come in and tell them to do it anyway? Why is it that the property owners must be the ones who have to deal with the area they fund being changed in ways they don't want, rather than people who can't afford to live there finding something within their means as my parents did?

Panzer04 3y ago
Because they are abusing the auspices of government to block other citizens from building what they want? It'd be one thing if they owned everything and weren't selling, but instead you have some landowners campaigning to prevent anyone else from building stuff. You seem to be under the impression that owning land in a municipality gives you the right to make decisions that affect other owners. A developer can't build what they want because a few other people object to "shade"? You can't respect the wishes of everyone like that.
kansface 3y ago
California loses substantial tax revenue due to the issue. No city wants local growth (prisoners dilemma), but the state sure does and it is the decider.
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  Cities also benefit from local growth. More people means more funding for local schools and roads and everything else that makes a city a city. What has happened in recent years however is that local elected city leaders do not think in terms of the best interests for the collective. They think in terms of keeping their jobs, bending over backwards towards those who donate and vote in these local elections. A demographic that is by and large older, whiter, richer, more conservative, and more likely to be an existing homeowner, who in California stands to benefit from exponential increases in real estate values on top of a fixed tax rate based on their purchase price vs current valuations.

TheGigaChad 3y ago

[dead]

supportengineer 3y ago

Is there any place in California that doesn’t fight building?

kjkjadksj 3y ago
Anywhere in california if what you are doing is converting farmland to suburban tract housing. Its at the next rung of density where most of the challenges lie.