3 ms·

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, th

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.
- aoeusnth1 3y ago
  The State of California has no obligation to allow SF to restrict its housing construction. SF exists by the good grace of the CA state government, and its housing policy is downstream of that.
  - taylodl 3y ago
    It's interesting you believe a state should have that kind of power. Sure, the legislature can withhold funding if you don't do what they like - that's on old yarn. But to strip a city of its right to maintain its own property and run roughshod? No. You can rest assured that if the state really wants to push it then SF will take it to court.
    - Analemma_ 3y ago
      Cities don't have the same kind of relationship to state governments that states do to the federal government. Legally, cities (apart from charter cities) are just an administrative detail of the state government: they exist solely to further the state government's policy goals and have no independent existence (or democratic mandate) outside that telos. Cities might be able to sue if there's a specific state law being violated like CEQA, but if that's not the case and the cities are just making a generic complaint that the state is overriding their control, the state can tell them to shove it and there's nothing the city can do.
    - aoeusnth1 3y ago
      If by 'maintain its own property' you mean exclude all others from living there by holding a stranglehold on construction, then yes, I believe zoning should be the power of the state, full stop.

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.

aoeusnth1 3y ago
The State of California has no obligation to allow SF to restrict its housing construction. SF exists by the good grace of the CA state government, and its housing policy is downstream of that.
- taylodl 3y ago
  It's interesting you believe a state should have that kind of power. Sure, the legislature can withhold funding if you don't do what they like - that's on old yarn. But to strip a city of its right to maintain its own property and run roughshod? No. You can rest assured that if the state really wants to push it then SF will take it to court.
  - Analemma_ 3y ago
    Cities don't have the same kind of relationship to state governments that states do to the federal government. Legally, cities (apart from charter cities) are just an administrative detail of the state government: they exist solely to further the state government's policy goals and have no independent existence (or democratic mandate) outside that telos. Cities might be able to sue if there's a specific state law being violated like CEQA, but if that's not the case and the cities are just making a generic complaint that the state is overriding their control, the state can tell them to shove it and there's nothing the city can do.
  - aoeusnth1 3y ago
    If by 'maintain its own property' you mean exclude all others from living there by holding a stranglehold on construction, then yes, I believe zoning should be the power of the state, full stop.