4 ms·

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

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?
  - sgregnt 3y ago
    If this is legal why not? What if I store it in a car and park near by?
  - lazyasciiart 3y ago
    Yes, and in many specific cases, the thing people wanted to do was "sell or rent their house to a black person".
mitthrowaway2 3y ago
The thing is that the 200 soon-to-be residents who will move into a new apartment building won't get to vote in favour of its construction until after they've moved in. Furthermore, the municipality's authority to govern is derived from the democratically-elected California state government. So this appears to be a democracy of Californians telling San Francisco that they can't maintain local zoning authority if it's going to keep making it too expensive for other Californians to move there. Now perhaps you could take the position that California voters shouldn't be allowed to tell San Francisco what to do, based on the principle that only the residents of an area should have final authority over how their land is used, regardless of what their surrounding neighbours vote... but I'm sure you'd see the irony.
rob74 3y ago
You can build a better SF where land is cheap. In the middle of the desert?
- nradov 3y ago
  Well they tried that decades ago with California City out in the Mohave Desert. It didn't work. https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/california-city-planned-community-explained-18476273.php https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/california-city-planne...
  - kjkjadksj 3y ago
    People move somewhere because there are jobs available not plots of land
- WillPostForFood 3y ago
  California is over 100 million acres, mostly not houses. Fixating on a small peninsula is part of the problem. Building in the middle of the desert worked for Las Vegas, Phoenix, etc.. Los Angeles wasn't a desert, but they made it work in a pretty dry area.
  - hollerith 3y ago
    Las Vegas, Phoenix and LA were able to get big because there weren't already cities the size of Vegas, Phoenix and LA hogging all the water.
    - kjkjadksj 3y ago
      There’s enough water in the state of california to see the population go up by 10 fold. We just devote the vast majority to a politically entrenched farmer-millionaire landowner class so we can grow things like cotton and alfalfa for export markets.
      - hollerith 3y ago
linguae 3y ago
You bring up an interesting point: why don’t developers build walkable communities in the suburbs or exurbs, or even in brand new cities? It would be nice if a developer built a “Nuevo San Francisco” or even a “Nuevo Palo Alto” somewhere in the Central Valley, especially if it could be tied to the upcoming California High Speed Rail line. Yet developers continue to build car-dependent neighborhoods. Now, granted, this won’t solve the problem of housing in San Francisco and other areas with rich job markets but extremely expensive housing. Having to commute three hours away is still a problem. But for those who are willing or able to leave the Bay Area, why aren’t developers generally only building car-dependent suburbs instead of walkable towns and cities?
- nradov 3y ago
  It seems to be happening. A group of wealthy investors including Laurene Powell Jobs, Marc Andreessen, and Reid Hoffman are building a "utopian city for the tech elite" in Solano County. Until we see more details I don't know whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. But previous attempts to build whole new artificial cities have mostly failed. https://www.npr.org/2023/09/18/1200196497/locals-push-back-against-plans-to-build-a-tech-utopia-in-solano-county-calif https://www.npr.org/2023/09/18/1200196497/locals-push-back-a...
- CalRobert 3y ago
  It's illegal. Parking minimums in particular made it illegal to build nice places. Though they get exceptions sometimes, see culdesac.com
  - cortesoft 3y ago
    Parking minimums are local rules, not state law, so wouldn’t be a thing if you are building in unincorporated areas. And in fact, California has passed some laws putting restrictions in place on where you can have parking minimums https://www.capradio.org/articles/2022/10/12/california-law-abolishes-parking-minimums-for-new-developments-close-to-public-transit https://www.capradio.org/articles/2022/10/12/california-law-...
- scythe 3y ago
xvedejas 3y ago
I can't vote for 10 out of 11 of SF city supervisors, but they get to prevent my neighborhood from building more housing. I feel like whatever ideals you have about democracy here, they don't exist in practice in San Francisco for various reasons. I'm extremely glad my elected state government can step in for the greater cohesion of democratic voices across the state and override the hyper-local politics.

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?
- sgregnt 3y ago
  If this is legal why not? What if I store it in a car and park near by?
- lazyasciiart 3y ago
  Yes, and in many specific cases, the thing people wanted to do was "sell or rent their house to a black person".

mitthrowaway2 3y ago

The thing is that the 200 soon-to-be residents who will move into a new apartment building won't get to vote in favour of its construction until after they've moved in. Furthermore, the municipality's authority to govern is derived from the democratically-elected California state government. So this appears to be a democracy of Californians telling San Francisco that they can't maintain local zoning authority if it's going to keep making it too expensive for other Californians to move there. Now perhaps you could take the position that California voters shouldn't be allowed to tell San Francisco what to do, based on the principle that only the residents of an area should have final authority over how their land is used, regardless of what their surrounding neighbours vote... but I'm sure you'd see the irony.

rob74 3y ago

You can build a better SF where land is cheap. In the middle of the desert?

nradov 3y ago
Well they tried that decades ago with California City out in the Mohave Desert. It didn't work. https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/california-city-planned-community-explained-18476273.php https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/california-city-planne...
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  People move somewhere because there are jobs available not plots of land
WillPostForFood 3y ago
California is over 100 million acres, mostly not houses. Fixating on a small peninsula is part of the problem. Building in the middle of the desert worked for Las Vegas, Phoenix, etc.. Los Angeles wasn't a desert, but they made it work in a pretty dry area.
- hollerith 3y ago
  Las Vegas, Phoenix and LA were able to get big because there weren't already cities the size of Vegas, Phoenix and LA hogging all the water.
  - kjkjadksj 3y ago
    There’s enough water in the state of california to see the population go up by 10 fold. We just devote the vast majority to a politically entrenched farmer-millionaire landowner class so we can grow things like cotton and alfalfa for export markets.
    - hollerith 3y ago

linguae 3y ago

You bring up an interesting point: why don’t developers build walkable communities in the suburbs or exurbs, or even in brand new cities? It would be nice if a developer built a “Nuevo San Francisco” or even a “Nuevo Palo Alto” somewhere in the Central Valley, especially if it could be tied to the upcoming California High Speed Rail line. Yet developers continue to build car-dependent neighborhoods. Now, granted, this won’t solve the problem of housing in San Francisco and other areas with rich job markets but extremely expensive housing. Having to commute three hours away is still a problem. But for those who are willing or able to leave the Bay Area, why aren’t developers generally only building car-dependent suburbs instead of walkable towns and cities?

nradov 3y ago
It seems to be happening. A group of wealthy investors including Laurene Powell Jobs, Marc Andreessen, and Reid Hoffman are building a "utopian city for the tech elite" in Solano County. Until we see more details I don't know whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. But previous attempts to build whole new artificial cities have mostly failed. https://www.npr.org/2023/09/18/1200196497/locals-push-back-against-plans-to-build-a-tech-utopia-in-solano-county-calif https://www.npr.org/2023/09/18/1200196497/locals-push-back-a...
CalRobert 3y ago
It's illegal. Parking minimums in particular made it illegal to build nice places. Though they get exceptions sometimes, see culdesac.com
- cortesoft 3y ago
  Parking minimums are local rules, not state law, so wouldn’t be a thing if you are building in unincorporated areas. And in fact, California has passed some laws putting restrictions in place on where you can have parking minimums https://www.capradio.org/articles/2022/10/12/california-law-abolishes-parking-minimums-for-new-developments-close-to-public-transit https://www.capradio.org/articles/2022/10/12/california-law-...
scythe 3y ago

xvedejas 3y ago

I can't vote for 10 out of 11 of SF city supervisors, but they get to prevent my neighborhood from building more housing. I feel like whatever ideals you have about democracy here, they don't exist in practice in San Francisco for various reasons. I'm extremely glad my elected state government can step in for the greater cohesion of democratic voices across the state and override the hyper-local politics.