3 ms·

> “I don’t know that picking an unnecessary fight with San Francisco would be helpful to (the state’s) cause,” said Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, who authored tw

by amluto 3y ago

> “I don’t know that picking an unnecessary fight with San Francisco would be helpful to (the state’s) cause,” said Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, who authored two of the amendments — including a particularly dubious one to make it harder to demolish thousands of homes built before 1923 with no clear historic significance. All of the city's authority comes from state law, and I don't see why the state puts up with any of this. Maybe it would be politically fraught, but the state could remove the authority of cities to do things like this.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> All of the city's authority comes from state law, and I don't see why the state puts up with any of this. It doesn't come all come from "state law" of the type the legislature is free to change, it comes from the State Constitution and/or initiative statute, either of which takes a statewide public vote on the specific measure to change. Also, the same people that vote for the local officials that are resistant to housing measures vote for state officials, and they aren't much less overrepresented at the state level -- its not a uniquely SF issue. That said, more to the point: > Maybe it would be politically fraught, but the state could remove the authority of cities to do things like this. The entire issue in the article is San Francisco pushing the limits of, and arguably exceeding, its authority under existing law; the State has already restricted the authority of local government in this area.
- amluto 3y ago
  > the State has already restricted the authority of local government in this area. What I mean is: instead of the state penalizing San Francisco for unreasonable restrictions on development, the state could invalidate those restrictions. Yes, the builder’s remedy sort of does this, but it’s an odd, indirect solution.

by amluto 3y ago

dragonwriter 3y ago

> All of the city's authority comes from state law, and I don't see why the state puts up with any of this. It doesn't come all come from "state law" of the type the legislature is free to change, it comes from the State Constitution and/or initiative statute, either of which takes a statewide public vote on the specific measure to change. Also, the same people that vote for the local officials that are resistant to housing measures vote for state officials, and they aren't much less overrepresented at the state level -- its not a uniquely SF issue. That said, more to the point: > Maybe it would be politically fraught, but the state could remove the authority of cities to do things like this. The entire issue in the article is San Francisco pushing the limits of, and arguably exceeding, its authority under existing law; the State has already restricted the authority of local government in this area.

amluto 3y ago
> the State has already restricted the authority of local government in this area. What I mean is: instead of the state penalizing San Francisco for unreasonable restrictions on development, the state could invalidate those restrictions. Yes, the builder’s remedy sort of does this, but it’s an odd, indirect solution.