5 ms·

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 encourag

by 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
Sorry to be flippant, but 250 years of building is not a long time at all, nor is it a relevant data point.
fyrn_ 3y ago
Presumably you don't consider those who can't afford tent or barely can San Franciscans
- marcus0x62 3y ago
  > afford tent What an appropriate typo.
waveBidder 3y ago
Get out of the city if you hate people so much.
kjkjadksj 3y ago
Cities don’t just stop building when they get full. If that were the case there would be no modern tokyo for example. Or modern anywhere else, central and south american cities now look like modern and tall east asian cities, in contrast to American cities that have looked broadly the same for 60 years.
entiex 3y ago
It's not nearly "full", whatever that means. It's full of single family housing and far less dense than many other cities. Additionally, density is good for the environment because it lowers emissions and lowers utility overhead. People being more spread out means more emissions resulting from transit, because everything they need to get to is farther apart. I don't know why you'd think otherwise (and you don't say). Finally, the decisions made by San Francisco affect people other than those who live in the city. Since the foundational principle of democracy is the ability to have a say in decisions that affect you, those people deserve (and have) power over land-use decisions in San Francisco.

by 7e 3y ago

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

Sorry to be flippant, but 250 years of building is not a long time at all, nor is it a relevant data point.

fyrn_ 3y ago

Presumably you don't consider those who can't afford tent or barely can San Franciscans

marcus0x62 3y ago
> afford tent What an appropriate typo.

waveBidder 3y ago

Get out of the city if you hate people so much.

kjkjadksj 3y ago

Cities don’t just stop building when they get full. If that were the case there would be no modern tokyo for example. Or modern anywhere else, central and south american cities now look like modern and tall east asian cities, in contrast to American cities that have looked broadly the same for 60 years.

entiex 3y ago

It's not nearly "full", whatever that means. It's full of single family housing and far less dense than many other cities. Additionally, density is good for the environment because it lowers emissions and lowers utility overhead. People being more spread out means more emissions resulting from transit, because everything they need to get to is farther apart. I don't know why you'd think otherwise (and you don't say). Finally, the decisions made by San Francisco affect people other than those who live in the city. Since the foundational principle of democracy is the ability to have a say in decisions that affect you, those people deserve (and have) power over land-use decisions in San Francisco.