3 ms·

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 beca

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.
kjkjadksj 3y ago
In none of these proposals is anyone forced to do anything with their land. In contrast, today you are forced to do nothing with a lot of land thats built to its zoned capacity. If you want to build an apartment on the lot you own and get some productivity out of it, too bad, says the laws of today. A true libertarian bent would be to eliminate zoning entirely and let the market naturally shape the environment to meet demand over time.
joshuamorton 3y ago
If you want to remove government involvement, you'd be in favor of dropping zoning requirements, removing various approval processes, and letting land owners develop.
greenie_beans 3y ago
property owners are only one segment of the population of people who should have power in local politics.

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.

kjkjadksj 3y ago

In none of these proposals is anyone forced to do anything with their land. In contrast, today you are forced to do nothing with a lot of land thats built to its zoned capacity. If you want to build an apartment on the lot you own and get some productivity out of it, too bad, says the laws of today. A true libertarian bent would be to eliminate zoning entirely and let the market naturally shape the environment to meet demand over time.

joshuamorton 3y ago

If you want to remove government involvement, you'd be in favor of dropping zoning requirements, removing various approval processes, and letting land owners develop.

greenie_beans 3y ago

property owners are only one segment of the population of people who should have power in local politics.