6 ms·

San Francisco Blows Housing Deadline, Prompting Standoff with State Regulators

120 points by lando2319 3y ago

VHRanger 3y ago
Well, good. The state level regulation is made to force these dysfunctional city halls to get their ducks in a row or face builders remedy. 50 years on, it's clear zoning regulations being determined at the municipal level is toxic, because regulation gets captured to enrich existing land owners at the expense of everyone else.
- arcticbull 3y ago
  I just can’t understand why the “builders remedy” isn’t the default housing policy. [edit] If the government wants to control rents and define what a neighborhood looks like it should buy the land and build itself; then rent it out using policies it likes, or sell it as “affordable housing.” Works great in Singapore. Otherwise private land shouldn’t be subject to this silly overbearing approach to “rent control” and shadows and color schemes and building heights. If a neighbor doesn’t like what you’re doing on your own land they should buy your land or stop whining. Plenty of remote places they can buy a tract and decide what’s what.
  - TaylorAlexander 3y ago
    > because regulation gets captured to enrich existing land owners at the expense of everyone else.
  - WillPostForFood 3y ago
    If a neighbor doesn’t like what you’re doing on your own land they should buy your land or stop whining. Plenty of remote places they can buy a tract and decide what’s what. Isn't this what you should do? Zoning isn't an act of god, it is the choice of democratic elected majorities. You don't need to live in the mission or pacific heights. You can build a better SF where land is cheap and there is no zoning. San Francisco is 65%-70% renters, they have a large majority to make change if they want.
    - arcticbull 3y ago
      My argument is if it’s my property I should be able to do whatever I want with it. Build what I want on it. Rent it at whatever price I want. If the city feels differently they should buy the land and develop it themselves. Not have their cake and eat it too; where I own the land and I can’t do what I want with it. Honestly if SF was declared a UNESCO world heritage site it would probably have fewer restrictions.
      - bee_rider 3y ago
        I mean clearly there should be some limits… somewhere between toxic waste dumps and McMansions I guess.
        bsder 3y ago
        The zoning restrictions should be behavioral not structural--much like Japan. Behavioral restrictions are things like "no more than 80db noise from hours of x to Y" or "no smells which can be detected n kilometers away" with significant fines for violation. In an industrial area, you release the requirements. You can put your residence in an industrial area, but you don't get to complain about noise and stink afterward. In a residential area, you tighten the requirements. You can put your business in a residential area, but you have to comply with better restrictions. A dentist or computer worker can easily meet the restrictions while industrial would be highly unlikely to pass.
        rcpt 3y ago
        You'd think so but here in Los Angeles we have honest to God oil derricks right in the middle of residential neighborhoods and on public school grounds. If zoning doesn't prevent the heaviest of heavy industry from setting up shop right next to preschool then it's pretty clear that the only reason we have it is to boost the assets of entrenched property owners
      - dockd 3y ago
        Don't these laws get written precisely because someone did whatever they wanted with their land? Could you dump toxic waste there if you want? Could you store tons of ammonium nitrate on it? Could you farm chickens? Hold nightly raves?
  - unmole 3y ago
    > Works great in Singapore. Heh. Where young people postpone marriage and continue to stay with their parents because of how long it takes to get a HDB flat?
    - arcticbull 3y ago
      I don’t understand how this is a criticism, really. It was successful, they should do more of it. Do you not think people are living with parents, renting and postponing marriage in big American cities because they can’t afford more than a shoebox? At worst it sounds lateral. But really it sounds like we need some comparative data. How many Singaporeans are in that position as compared to America or god forbid Canada? Remember that 80% of Singaporeans live in HDB flats, and they have the infrastructure and experience to throw up some more towers fast.
      - noobermin 3y ago
        The government has been explicit about their intent here. They are holding off on building more even though hdb rents and hdb flat resale prices are skyrocketting because they don't want to lead to a drop in prices or may be even a cooling in the rate. As in...they want to keep current flat owners happy. The argument re hdb is probably still valid but it had more currency 10 or 20 years ago. Today, sg looks more and more like the rest of the developed world cities that refuse to build enough housing to meet demand. It's probably even more frustrating in that if there is any government that could do it if they wanted to, it would be the sg govt.
        arcticbull 3y ago
        > The government has been explicit about their intent here So it worked until they decided to stop doing it. And this is an argument against doing it? :)
        unmole 3y ago
        So it worked until it didn't. The government needs to constrain supply to keep the voter base happy at the expense of younger folks. A private builder wouldn't find itself in a similar situation.
  - refurb 3y ago
    Works “great” in Singapore? You can’t access public housing unless married or over 35. The rules keep being changed because Singaporeans see housing as a lottery - and it is. Land a new HDB in a prime location and you can sell it at market rates 5 years later. A cool $500,000 in your pocket. Oh, and everything is a 99-year lease, so after paying $1M for a resale HDB you get to give it back to the government and walk away with zero. Don’t get me wrong, it worked great at rapidly housing a large population in a country with limited space. But it’s far from an optimized or sustainable system.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      Is the SG government going to renew leases at discount rates? There was a huge scandal in China when some older 30 year leases came up on some apartments and the local government wanted to allow renewals at market rates. Everyone just assumes when the leases expire they will be renewed at less than market pricing (so it’s as good as buying!). The central government had to step in and make the city renew the leases cheaply, since the real estate market takes these leases as a formality (and China has a a lot of 99 year leases that would go bonkers on the secondary market otherwise).
      - refurb 3y ago
        There are occasions where “en bloc” development happens where current owners get bought out. Or leases are extended for a payment from homeowners. But the government has come out and said “those will be the rare exceptions”. There were some 40 year lease homes that expired recently and the government took them over and tore them down with no compensation to the owners.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    > Works great in Singapore. Try moving to Singapore and see how that works out for you. Until you or your spouse are a citizen (and the other a permanent resident), and then wait some time. I’m not sure how a city in the USA could give away apartments (or sell them at subsidized pricing) without some sort of residency restriction, and even if the federal government was funding it, you couldn’t just let everyone live in the most popular cities, someone will need to live in a flat in Gary Indiana for example. Singapore can do this because they can restrict it to citizens and PRs married to citizens, migrant workers don’t need to be considered.
    - emodendroket 3y ago
      Everything's easier when you have a class of helots around to push all the costs onto.
    - lazyasciiart 3y ago
      They could do it easily, the existing section 8 program already has residency restrictions.
      - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        As far as I can tell, section 8 has residency restrictions at the USA level, not local level. I see no residency requirements in WA for example, and they even encourage you to apply to multiple localities because waiting lists are long.
        lazyasciiart 3y ago
        Each public housing authority is allowed to set a residency "preference" (not a residency requirement) but you're right, many of them don't seem to implement one. I assume that with the ridiculous limits on applying it has only become an issue in the last decade, at most. (E.g King County last opened their wait list for two weeks in 2020). Some places also implement a quasi-residential requirement by making the wait list open only/preferentially to people referred by a local service provider.
  - emodendroket 3y ago
    I think we can acknowledge it's gone awry without disclaiming that people are not entirely unjustified in not wanting to live next to, like, an abattoir.
    - arcticbull 3y ago
      My ideal zoning system is like Sim City. Residential, Commercial and Industrial.
  - rcpt 3y ago
    The builders remedy requires that a large part of the new housing is sold below market rate but the state doesn't pay the developers extra because of this. As a result it's hard to get these to pencil out. I wouldn't be surprised if cities subject to builders remedy end up with less housing vs. those that wrote compliant plans.
- 7e 3y ago
  [flagged]
- dinobones 3y ago
  This is the main problem I see with American politics. Too afraid to fully make something public, so we end up with a half baked public/private hybrid that is disastrous. I think healthcare should be fully public or fully private. What we have now is a joke and leads to massively bloated healthcare costs. Exact same with education. Thanks to government loans and subsidies tuition costs have exploded. Either make it public or private. The public/private hybrid takes taxpayer money and enriches the private corporations offering near-monopoly services of poor quality.
  - refurb 3y ago
    I think healthcare should be fully public or fully private. What we have now is a joke and leads to massively bloated healthcare costs. Why? The only country I can think of that is fully public is Canada. And even then, there is a small amount of private. Every other country has a mix of public and private. Why do you feel that making healthcare public only is the solution? What are you basing that one?
    - solardev 3y ago
      I think this is a disingenuous way of painting the healthcare situation in most developed countries, where the overwhelming population uses the good enough public default. What America has is uniquely nightmarish, and not at all similar to other countries.
      - TMWNN 3y ago
        >I think this is a disingenuous way of painting the healthcare situation in most developed countries, where the overwhelming population uses the good enough public default. Not true! Having the public option be the "overwhelming default" is not the norm among developed countries. Neither is there being a public option at all! Nor is anything else the norm, so great is the variety of approaches. What is true is that the Canadian/British approach of completely or almost completely free at delivery is not the norm. The US's approach post-Obamacare is closest to the DACH countries, with a variety of nonprofit and profit plans. The US differs in a) having Medicare as the normal public option for the elderly (and having it be completely government run[1]), and b) not making getting a plan mandatory, while the DACH norm is for the government to pick one for you and send you the bill if you don't choose one first. [1] Although I suppose Medicare Advantage is similar to the nonprofit plans available through the German GKV
- nickpinkston 3y ago
  This 100%! I joined the board of YIMBY Action [1] a while back, and our mission is to help open/grow local activist groups to push for the YIMBY movement's pro-housing goals at the local level. We help get people elected, get them support to pass better laws, and sue the cities when they don't comply with the laws to compel them to do so. We've spearheaded the action on "RHNA / Housing Element" [2] which helps push CA cities to do better, or like you said, allow the "Builder's Remedy" to bypass a lot of their stalling tactics. I'd recommend anyone who cares to check out the sites below, come to a meeting, or donate to the cause. We even have a "Sue SF" fund if you want to help sue the bastards that make our rent too damn high and push people into poverty and homelessness. [1] https://yimbyaction.org https://yimbyaction.org [2] https://yimbyaction.org/rhna/ https://yimbyaction.org/rhna/
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  Zoning at any level you mean. Look at how the California Coastal Commission has hobbled urban development in this state compared to seaside metropolis in Asia or Latin America or really most anywhere else in the world that sees investment in development.
mbgerring 3y ago
The best possible outcome here is SF blowing this deadline and a bunch of new housing developments getting approved a day later.
- dehrmann 3y ago
  Maybe, but SFMTA will just drag its feet on blocking of parking for construction.
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    The state has been quite good at quickly passing laws that nullify whatever loopholes localities come up with. IMO this wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing as it will likely lead to a law that ensures no one else can do it again.
    - dehrmann 3y ago
      You can't nullify this, though. Without SFMTA enforcing construction parking, people will just park there and slow/stop construction for you.
whyenot 3y ago
I understand why the state is applying pressure, and SF’s building and planning departments are embarrassingly dysfunctional and corrupt. Still, I firmly believe that a democracy works better when there is local control. San Francisco is already the most densely populated city in California, with three times the density of LA. If it is the wish of the people of SF to go slow on development, is that really unreasonable?
- CalRobert 3y ago
  That's still not very dense. And what of the wishes of those who would like to be San Franciscan, but cannot be?
  - taylodl 3y ago
    What of the wishes of those who would like to own a Lamborghini, but cannot be?
    - kjkjadksj 3y ago
      Not exactly the best analogy. Most people live somewhere because of work, a very insignificantly small percentage move somewhere to have fun with no plan.
    - Analemma_ 3y ago
      The sibling commenter already has the "real" rebuttal to this, but I would also add that if living in SF really was such a luxury good akin to a Lamborghini, then local taxes on local residents should go way, way up so the government can capture the appropriate amount of value (as they would with sales tax on a Lambo) and the market can allocate the scarce good most efficiently. It wouldn't make any sense to randomly privilege the people who happened to move there first.
      - taylodl 3y ago
        There is no "real" rebuttal: SF has no obligation to safeguard the interests of would-be residents. It may be wise for them to do so, but they're under no obligation to do so.
outside1234 3y ago
Just revoke their permitting and start mass approving everything already
im3w1l 3y ago
Perhaps a bit tangential but something I've been thinking about recently is that new-borns are born without any property. They don't have any rent-controlled apartments. On the other hand they do have equal rights to the commons. This means that if the commons is divided up and sold it results in an increased wealth disparity and power imbalance between generations. And the same goes for semi-permanent privileges. That wealth can in turn be used to gain more power and influence over policy potentially leading to an even bigger disparity. If that spiral is left unchecked it seems you get some kind of gerontocratic failure mode of democracy.
- snovv_crash 3y ago
  Look up Henry George for a constructive approach on how to solve this exact issue.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  The economic literature on the morality of land ownership is surprising thorough. Imo Henry George had it right. The land belongs to society, land ownership is immoral, all land should be rented out by the government at market rates through a land value tax.
  - dataflow 3y ago
    > The land belongs to society, land ownership is immoral, all land should be rented out by the government at market rates through a land value tax. I'm pretty uninformed on this subject, so pardon my ignorance with this question, but what's the "morality" difference between renting land and owning it? Because in the US, even when you nominally "own" land, you still have to pay taxes on it, otherwise it can get seized by the government. And even when you do pay your taxes, the government can always seize it and reimburse you through eminent domain. It seems pretty similar to renting to me, except by a different name. How is that so dramatically different from renting where one is moral and the other immoral?
    - HDThoreaun 3y ago
      So 2 things here. First, whether people currently "own" land due to property taxes. Sure there's an argument there but imo it's mostly semantics. The main point is that the vast majority of land rents go to the "owner" because the property taxes are a low percentage of the lands value. As far as why private land ownership is immoral I think it's quite obvious when you think about why we have property rights. Other than the security aspects which are retained with land value tax the main purpose is to encourage people to create things, without property rights there's less incentive to engage in the economy. Through that lens private ownership of land is absurd. Land is not created, the idea that someone can become entitled to its rents is counterintuitive to the entire point of property ownership. The profits from an asset that wasn't created by anyone should go to everyone. We can go in less philosophical directions too, land value tax has zero deadweight loss and heavily penalizes speculation. LVT encourages efficient land use which raises our GDP and is likely to help everyone in the economy as land is a very decentralized asset.
Tempest1981 3y ago
So when the builder's remedy kicks in, is the city mandated to build the necessary water/sewer/electrical infrastructure for those buildings? Or is that the builder's responsibility? Who pays? (Current or future residents? Over what timeframe?) How much new infrastructure is required for a 50 story tower like this proposal? https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/tower-housing-ocean-beach-18507790.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/tower-housing-ocean-b...
- Tempest1981 3y ago
  Not sure why my comment was interpreted negatively -- too practical? Seems like important details to solve. Maybe that's why things aren't getting done. Might make sense for the state to provide funds, since many city budgets are struggling. SF has a projected $780 million two-year deficit, last I heard.
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  San fransisco public utilities commission is already spending billions on infrastructure upgrades. Its generally cheaper to service people living in apartments than single family homes so over time per capita costs actually decrease despite necessary capacity upgrades.
yonran 3y ago
The stupid thing is that the groups that reflexively oppose private housing in San Francisco (namely REP Coalition, CCHO, SFTU) chose “don’t demolish rent controlled housing” as their rallying cry for why they are calling to oppose this ordinance that streamlines new apartment buildings, which sometimes requires tearing down an old building. Which means that they are foregoing the Costa-Hawkins exemption in SB 330 (2019) that allows and requires demolished rent controlled apartment units to be replaced by brand new rent controlled units (which are the type of rental units that they like). They are foregoing win-win solutions due to extreme tribalism and economic illiteracy.
- riku_iki 3y ago
  > to be replaced by brand new rent controlled units. will it be rent control with new rent price baseline? Where people from demolished apartments will be living until new apartment will be built?..
  - acchow 3y ago
    No, no new price baseline. If the same tenants move back into the replaced unit, they continue at the rate as if their lease had been continuous (plus rent control raise limits)
    - jalapenos 3y ago
      That's a pretty good deal. Almost as if having gained tenancy in a rent-controlled property is a (non-transferable) asset worth more than the property itself.
      - YokoZar 3y ago
        Yes, that's exactly why "tenant buyouts" are a thing in San Francisco. They've created a property right for renters, as well as weird concepts like the "master tenant".
    - 8organicbits 3y ago
readthenotes1 3y ago
[flagged]
vlovich123 3y ago
I kind of hope that SF doesn’t manage to get their shit together so that their zoning privileges get revoked. Are there any downsides to that path?
- smugma 3y ago
  It depends whether you think a 50 story tower in ocean beach is awesome or atrocious: https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/sf-housing-sunset-skyscraper-18494637.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/sf-hou...
  - vlovich123 3y ago
    As long as it’s safe, what’s the problem?
    - smugma 3y ago
      I think it’s great. Haters will complain about impact on traffic, parking, busses, shadows cast, impacts on schools, etc.
  - mint2 3y ago
    I think it’s awesome if a handful like that get built, SF nimbys need a wake up call and having a few of those would do the trick. In comparison they’ll be happy for 4-6 story midrise buildings.
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    Ocean beach's zoning situation is a travesty. This development is welcome by me.
snapplebobapple 3y ago
Isn't the usa like Canada in that cities don't exist in the constitutional structure, they are basically creations of the state/province and as such can be wiped away with a simple ruling from the state/provincial legislature? Isn't that what one should do in this kind of situation, just pass legislation that revokes the current body's authority, fire all the committee members/representatives/whatever until you get down to base government, put in a transitional government committee on top of that that passes all new and improved ordinances and ensures their implementation before going to a vote 2-4 years down the road to replace themselves after the new status quo is entrenched? This would have the added benefit of getting the rest of the cities in line to do their jobs so they avoid the same fate.
- ecshafer 3y ago
  Itd impossible to give a general yes or no here since every state is different. The states determine what the city / county / town divisions are and what powers they have. Some places, like philadelphia the town, county, and city are all one thing, but the rest of pennsyvlania is not like thay. Somw states its an act of legislature but others its a state constitution which may be difficult to change.
- dyno12345 3y ago
  In California, yes, cities have no independent right to exist, it's ultimately completely up to the state

120 points by lando2319 3y ago

Well, good. The state level regulation is made to force these dysfunctional city halls to get their ducks in a row or face builders remedy. 50 years on, it's clear zoning regulations being determined at the municipal level is toxic, because regulation gets captured to enrich existing land owners at the expense of everyone else.

arcticbull 3y ago
I just can’t understand why the “builders remedy” isn’t the default housing policy. [edit] If the government wants to control rents and define what a neighborhood looks like it should buy the land and build itself; then rent it out using policies it likes, or sell it as “affordable housing.” Works great in Singapore. Otherwise private land shouldn’t be subject to this silly overbearing approach to “rent control” and shadows and color schemes and building heights. If a neighbor doesn’t like what you’re doing on your own land they should buy your land or stop whining. Plenty of remote places they can buy a tract and decide what’s what.
- TaylorAlexander 3y ago
  > because regulation gets captured to enrich existing land owners at the expense of everyone else.
- WillPostForFood 3y ago
  If a neighbor doesn’t like what you’re doing on your own land they should buy your land or stop whining. Plenty of remote places they can buy a tract and decide what’s what. Isn't this what you should do? Zoning isn't an act of god, it is the choice of democratic elected majorities. You don't need to live in the mission or pacific heights. You can build a better SF where land is cheap and there is no zoning. San Francisco is 65%-70% renters, they have a large majority to make change if they want.
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    My argument is if it’s my property I should be able to do whatever I want with it. Build what I want on it. Rent it at whatever price I want. If the city feels differently they should buy the land and develop it themselves. Not have their cake and eat it too; where I own the land and I can’t do what I want with it. Honestly if SF was declared a UNESCO world heritage site it would probably have fewer restrictions.
    - bee_rider 3y ago
      I mean clearly there should be some limits… somewhere between toxic waste dumps and McMansions I guess.
      - bsder 3y ago
        The zoning restrictions should be behavioral not structural--much like Japan. Behavioral restrictions are things like "no more than 80db noise from hours of x to Y" or "no smells which can be detected n kilometers away" with significant fines for violation. In an industrial area, you release the requirements. You can put your residence in an industrial area, but you don't get to complain about noise and stink afterward. In a residential area, you tighten the requirements. You can put your business in a residential area, but you have to comply with better restrictions. A dentist or computer worker can easily meet the restrictions while industrial would be highly unlikely to pass.
      - rcpt 3y ago
        You'd think so but here in Los Angeles we have honest to God oil derricks right in the middle of residential neighborhoods and on public school grounds. If zoning doesn't prevent the heaviest of heavy industry from setting up shop right next to preschool then it's pretty clear that the only reason we have it is to boost the assets of entrenched property owners
    - dockd 3y ago
      Don't these laws get written precisely because someone did whatever they wanted with their land? Could you dump toxic waste there if you want? Could you store tons of ammonium nitrate on it? Could you farm chickens? Hold nightly raves?
- unmole 3y ago
  > Works great in Singapore. Heh. Where young people postpone marriage and continue to stay with their parents because of how long it takes to get a HDB flat?
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    I don’t understand how this is a criticism, really. It was successful, they should do more of it. Do you not think people are living with parents, renting and postponing marriage in big American cities because they can’t afford more than a shoebox? At worst it sounds lateral. But really it sounds like we need some comparative data. How many Singaporeans are in that position as compared to America or god forbid Canada? Remember that 80% of Singaporeans live in HDB flats, and they have the infrastructure and experience to throw up some more towers fast.
    - noobermin 3y ago
      The government has been explicit about their intent here. They are holding off on building more even though hdb rents and hdb flat resale prices are skyrocketting because they don't want to lead to a drop in prices or may be even a cooling in the rate. As in...they want to keep current flat owners happy. The argument re hdb is probably still valid but it had more currency 10 or 20 years ago. Today, sg looks more and more like the rest of the developed world cities that refuse to build enough housing to meet demand. It's probably even more frustrating in that if there is any government that could do it if they wanted to, it would be the sg govt.
      - arcticbull 3y ago
        > The government has been explicit about their intent here So it worked until they decided to stop doing it. And this is an argument against doing it? :)
        unmole 3y ago
        So it worked until it didn't. The government needs to constrain supply to keep the voter base happy at the expense of younger folks. A private builder wouldn't find itself in a similar situation.
- refurb 3y ago
  Works “great” in Singapore? You can’t access public housing unless married or over 35. The rules keep being changed because Singaporeans see housing as a lottery - and it is. Land a new HDB in a prime location and you can sell it at market rates 5 years later. A cool $500,000 in your pocket. Oh, and everything is a 99-year lease, so after paying $1M for a resale HDB you get to give it back to the government and walk away with zero. Don’t get me wrong, it worked great at rapidly housing a large population in a country with limited space. But it’s far from an optimized or sustainable system.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    Is the SG government going to renew leases at discount rates? There was a huge scandal in China when some older 30 year leases came up on some apartments and the local government wanted to allow renewals at market rates. Everyone just assumes when the leases expire they will be renewed at less than market pricing (so it’s as good as buying!). The central government had to step in and make the city renew the leases cheaply, since the real estate market takes these leases as a formality (and China has a a lot of 99 year leases that would go bonkers on the secondary market otherwise).
    - refurb 3y ago
      There are occasions where “en bloc” development happens where current owners get bought out. Or leases are extended for a payment from homeowners. But the government has come out and said “those will be the rare exceptions”. There were some 40 year lease homes that expired recently and the government took them over and tore them down with no compensation to the owners.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  > Works great in Singapore. Try moving to Singapore and see how that works out for you. Until you or your spouse are a citizen (and the other a permanent resident), and then wait some time. I’m not sure how a city in the USA could give away apartments (or sell them at subsidized pricing) without some sort of residency restriction, and even if the federal government was funding it, you couldn’t just let everyone live in the most popular cities, someone will need to live in a flat in Gary Indiana for example. Singapore can do this because they can restrict it to citizens and PRs married to citizens, migrant workers don’t need to be considered.
  - emodendroket 3y ago
    Everything's easier when you have a class of helots around to push all the costs onto.
  - lazyasciiart 3y ago
    They could do it easily, the existing section 8 program already has residency restrictions.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      As far as I can tell, section 8 has residency restrictions at the USA level, not local level. I see no residency requirements in WA for example, and they even encourage you to apply to multiple localities because waiting lists are long.
      - lazyasciiart 3y ago
        Each public housing authority is allowed to set a residency "preference" (not a residency requirement) but you're right, many of them don't seem to implement one. I assume that with the ridiculous limits on applying it has only become an issue in the last decade, at most. (E.g King County last opened their wait list for two weeks in 2020). Some places also implement a quasi-residential requirement by making the wait list open only/preferentially to people referred by a local service provider.
- emodendroket 3y ago
  I think we can acknowledge it's gone awry without disclaiming that people are not entirely unjustified in not wanting to live next to, like, an abattoir.
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    My ideal zoning system is like Sim City. Residential, Commercial and Industrial.
- rcpt 3y ago
  The builders remedy requires that a large part of the new housing is sold below market rate but the state doesn't pay the developers extra because of this. As a result it's hard to get these to pencil out. I wouldn't be surprised if cities subject to builders remedy end up with less housing vs. those that wrote compliant plans.
7e 3y ago
[flagged]
dinobones 3y ago
This is the main problem I see with American politics. Too afraid to fully make something public, so we end up with a half baked public/private hybrid that is disastrous. I think healthcare should be fully public or fully private. What we have now is a joke and leads to massively bloated healthcare costs. Exact same with education. Thanks to government loans and subsidies tuition costs have exploded. Either make it public or private. The public/private hybrid takes taxpayer money and enriches the private corporations offering near-monopoly services of poor quality.
- refurb 3y ago
  I think healthcare should be fully public or fully private. What we have now is a joke and leads to massively bloated healthcare costs. Why? The only country I can think of that is fully public is Canada. And even then, there is a small amount of private. Every other country has a mix of public and private. Why do you feel that making healthcare public only is the solution? What are you basing that one?
  - solardev 3y ago
    I think this is a disingenuous way of painting the healthcare situation in most developed countries, where the overwhelming population uses the good enough public default. What America has is uniquely nightmarish, and not at all similar to other countries.
    - TMWNN 3y ago
      >I think this is a disingenuous way of painting the healthcare situation in most developed countries, where the overwhelming population uses the good enough public default. Not true! Having the public option be the "overwhelming default" is not the norm among developed countries. Neither is there being a public option at all! Nor is anything else the norm, so great is the variety of approaches. What is true is that the Canadian/British approach of completely or almost completely free at delivery is not the norm. The US's approach post-Obamacare is closest to the DACH countries, with a variety of nonprofit and profit plans. The US differs in a) having Medicare as the normal public option for the elderly (and having it be completely government run[1]), and b) not making getting a plan mandatory, while the DACH norm is for the government to pick one for you and send you the bill if you don't choose one first. [1] Although I suppose Medicare Advantage is similar to the nonprofit plans available through the German GKV
nickpinkston 3y ago
This 100%! I joined the board of YIMBY Action [1] a while back, and our mission is to help open/grow local activist groups to push for the YIMBY movement's pro-housing goals at the local level. We help get people elected, get them support to pass better laws, and sue the cities when they don't comply with the laws to compel them to do so. We've spearheaded the action on "RHNA / Housing Element" [2] which helps push CA cities to do better, or like you said, allow the "Builder's Remedy" to bypass a lot of their stalling tactics. I'd recommend anyone who cares to check out the sites below, come to a meeting, or donate to the cause. We even have a "Sue SF" fund if you want to help sue the bastards that make our rent too damn high and push people into poverty and homelessness. [1] https://yimbyaction.org https://yimbyaction.org [2] https://yimbyaction.org/rhna/ https://yimbyaction.org/rhna/
kjkjadksj 3y ago
Zoning at any level you mean. Look at how the California Coastal Commission has hobbled urban development in this state compared to seaside metropolis in Asia or Latin America or really most anywhere else in the world that sees investment in development.

mbgerring 3y ago

The best possible outcome here is SF blowing this deadline and a bunch of new housing developments getting approved a day later.

dehrmann 3y ago
Maybe, but SFMTA will just drag its feet on blocking of parking for construction.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  The state has been quite good at quickly passing laws that nullify whatever loopholes localities come up with. IMO this wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing as it will likely lead to a law that ensures no one else can do it again.
  - dehrmann 3y ago
    You can't nullify this, though. Without SFMTA enforcing construction parking, people will just park there and slow/stop construction for you.

whyenot 3y ago

I understand why the state is applying pressure, and SF’s building and planning departments are embarrassingly dysfunctional and corrupt. Still, I firmly believe that a democracy works better when there is local control. San Francisco is already the most densely populated city in California, with three times the density of LA. If it is the wish of the people of SF to go slow on development, is that really unreasonable?

CalRobert 3y ago
That's still not very dense. And what of the wishes of those who would like to be San Franciscan, but cannot be?
- taylodl 3y ago
  What of the wishes of those who would like to own a Lamborghini, but cannot be?
  - kjkjadksj 3y ago
    Not exactly the best analogy. Most people live somewhere because of work, a very insignificantly small percentage move somewhere to have fun with no plan.
  - Analemma_ 3y ago
    The sibling commenter already has the "real" rebuttal to this, but I would also add that if living in SF really was such a luxury good akin to a Lamborghini, then local taxes on local residents should go way, way up so the government can capture the appropriate amount of value (as they would with sales tax on a Lambo) and the market can allocate the scarce good most efficiently. It wouldn't make any sense to randomly privilege the people who happened to move there first.
    - taylodl 3y ago
      There is no "real" rebuttal: SF has no obligation to safeguard the interests of would-be residents. It may be wise for them to do so, but they're under no obligation to do so.

outside1234 3y ago

Just revoke their permitting and start mass approving everything already

im3w1l 3y ago

Perhaps a bit tangential but something I've been thinking about recently is that new-borns are born without any property. They don't have any rent-controlled apartments. On the other hand they do have equal rights to the commons. This means that if the commons is divided up and sold it results in an increased wealth disparity and power imbalance between generations. And the same goes for semi-permanent privileges. That wealth can in turn be used to gain more power and influence over policy potentially leading to an even bigger disparity. If that spiral is left unchecked it seems you get some kind of gerontocratic failure mode of democracy.

snovv_crash 3y ago
Look up Henry George for a constructive approach on how to solve this exact issue.
HDThoreaun 3y ago
The economic literature on the morality of land ownership is surprising thorough. Imo Henry George had it right. The land belongs to society, land ownership is immoral, all land should be rented out by the government at market rates through a land value tax.
- dataflow 3y ago
  > The land belongs to society, land ownership is immoral, all land should be rented out by the government at market rates through a land value tax. I'm pretty uninformed on this subject, so pardon my ignorance with this question, but what's the "morality" difference between renting land and owning it? Because in the US, even when you nominally "own" land, you still have to pay taxes on it, otherwise it can get seized by the government. And even when you do pay your taxes, the government can always seize it and reimburse you through eminent domain. It seems pretty similar to renting to me, except by a different name. How is that so dramatically different from renting where one is moral and the other immoral?
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    So 2 things here. First, whether people currently "own" land due to property taxes. Sure there's an argument there but imo it's mostly semantics. The main point is that the vast majority of land rents go to the "owner" because the property taxes are a low percentage of the lands value. As far as why private land ownership is immoral I think it's quite obvious when you think about why we have property rights. Other than the security aspects which are retained with land value tax the main purpose is to encourage people to create things, without property rights there's less incentive to engage in the economy. Through that lens private ownership of land is absurd. Land is not created, the idea that someone can become entitled to its rents is counterintuitive to the entire point of property ownership. The profits from an asset that wasn't created by anyone should go to everyone. We can go in less philosophical directions too, land value tax has zero deadweight loss and heavily penalizes speculation. LVT encourages efficient land use which raises our GDP and is likely to help everyone in the economy as land is a very decentralized asset.

Tempest1981 3y ago

So when the builder's remedy kicks in, is the city mandated to build the necessary water/sewer/electrical infrastructure for those buildings? Or is that the builder's responsibility? Who pays? (Current or future residents? Over what timeframe?) How much new infrastructure is required for a 50 story tower like this proposal? https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/tower-housing-ocean-beach-18507790.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/tower-housing-ocean-b...

Tempest1981 3y ago
Not sure why my comment was interpreted negatively -- too practical? Seems like important details to solve. Maybe that's why things aren't getting done. Might make sense for the state to provide funds, since many city budgets are struggling. SF has a projected $780 million two-year deficit, last I heard.
kjkjadksj 3y ago
San fransisco public utilities commission is already spending billions on infrastructure upgrades. Its generally cheaper to service people living in apartments than single family homes so over time per capita costs actually decrease despite necessary capacity upgrades.

yonran 3y ago

The stupid thing is that the groups that reflexively oppose private housing in San Francisco (namely REP Coalition, CCHO, SFTU) chose “don’t demolish rent controlled housing” as their rallying cry for why they are calling to oppose this ordinance that streamlines new apartment buildings, which sometimes requires tearing down an old building. Which means that they are foregoing the Costa-Hawkins exemption in SB 330 (2019) that allows and requires demolished rent controlled apartment units to be replaced by brand new rent controlled units (which are the type of rental units that they like). They are foregoing win-win solutions due to extreme tribalism and economic illiteracy.

riku_iki 3y ago
> to be replaced by brand new rent controlled units. will it be rent control with new rent price baseline? Where people from demolished apartments will be living until new apartment will be built?..
- acchow 3y ago
  No, no new price baseline. If the same tenants move back into the replaced unit, they continue at the rate as if their lease had been continuous (plus rent control raise limits)
  - jalapenos 3y ago
    That's a pretty good deal. Almost as if having gained tenancy in a rent-controlled property is a (non-transferable) asset worth more than the property itself.
    - YokoZar 3y ago
      Yes, that's exactly why "tenant buyouts" are a thing in San Francisco. They've created a property right for renters, as well as weird concepts like the "master tenant".
  - 8organicbits 3y ago

readthenotes1 3y ago

[flagged]

vlovich123 3y ago

I kind of hope that SF doesn’t manage to get their shit together so that their zoning privileges get revoked. Are there any downsides to that path?

smugma 3y ago
It depends whether you think a 50 story tower in ocean beach is awesome or atrocious: https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/sf-housing-sunset-skyscraper-18494637.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/sf-hou...
- vlovich123 3y ago
  As long as it’s safe, what’s the problem?
  - smugma 3y ago
    I think it’s great. Haters will complain about impact on traffic, parking, busses, shadows cast, impacts on schools, etc.
- mint2 3y ago
  I think it’s awesome if a handful like that get built, SF nimbys need a wake up call and having a few of those would do the trick. In comparison they’ll be happy for 4-6 story midrise buildings.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  Ocean beach's zoning situation is a travesty. This development is welcome by me.

snapplebobapple 3y ago

Isn't the usa like Canada in that cities don't exist in the constitutional structure, they are basically creations of the state/province and as such can be wiped away with a simple ruling from the state/provincial legislature? Isn't that what one should do in this kind of situation, just pass legislation that revokes the current body's authority, fire all the committee members/representatives/whatever until you get down to base government, put in a transitional government committee on top of that that passes all new and improved ordinances and ensures their implementation before going to a vote 2-4 years down the road to replace themselves after the new status quo is entrenched? This would have the added benefit of getting the rest of the cities in line to do their jobs so they avoid the same fate.

ecshafer 3y ago
Itd impossible to give a general yes or no here since every state is different. The states determine what the city / county / town divisions are and what powers they have. Some places, like philadelphia the town, county, and city are all one thing, but the rest of pennsyvlania is not like thay. Somw states its an act of legislature but others its a state constitution which may be difficult to change.
dyno12345 3y ago
In California, yes, cities have no independent right to exist, it's ultimately completely up to the state