4 ms·

> Zoning is a disaster for commerce in the valley... New development is virtually nonexistent What surprises me is that there is still no organization that ade

by ak217 14y ago

> Zoning is a disaster for commerce in the valley... New development is virtually nonexistent What surprises me is that there is still no organization that adequately represents technology companies' and workers' interests on the peninsula and in the city. Most cities here seem to have public employees' associations that have a big say in how the city operates and develops. I think a PAC representing pro-density, pro-development, pro-infrastructure, pro-public transit interests that runs candidates for city councils and builds a track record of successful actions can become the prime political force on the peninsula. (At least if it manages to keep the public project costs from ballooning as they're prone to doing in CA.) Meanwhile, the public is subjected to mind-boggling pieces like http://blog.sfgate.com/stew/2012/09/20/is-tech-destroying-san-francisco/ http://blog.sfgate.com/stew/2012/09/20/is-tech-destroying-sa....

potatolicious 14y ago
I really don't think public unions is really the blocker when it comes to development in SF - after all, why in the world would density be a chart-topping issue for, say, the teacher's union? SF residents are their own worst enemy here. Everybody loves the rows of cutesy Victorians, and everybody has a death-grudge against high-rises, or even mid-density low-rises. Every time the issue of development is brought up, people scream foul and act as if the sky is falling. Everyone has a knee-jerk opposition to building things, even though their all-time favorite thing to moan about (rent) is their own damned fault. Indeed, it makes no sense to blame this particular thing on unions and public employee's, and every sense to blame it on San Francisco's famously myopic citizenry (of which many are techies).
- ak217 14y ago
  > I really don't think public unions is really the blocker I agree with you, I don't think they are. What I said is that the tech workers are not represented as a class the way public employees are. > and everybody has a death-grudge against high-rises, or even mid-density low-rises. Every time the issue of development is brought up, people scream foul and act as if the sky is falling That's the thing: there's a huge segment of the population who really like high-rises and mid-density buildings, as evidenced by the wild popularity of that kind of housing. But there's a smaller, apparently more vocal segment who hate it (and perhaps have more time on their hands to make themselves heard). So the trick is to organize people who are OK with development to the point where we can repeal laws that preclude it, as well as make things like this possible: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius/article/1-dissenting-voice-holds-up-park-upgrade-3736021.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius/article/1-dissenting-vo...
  - ef4 14y ago
    > there's a smaller, apparently more vocal segment who hate it (and perhaps have more time on their hands to make themselves heard). This is a general problem in local governments all over America. The people who already own real estate wield more influence, and their self-interest is in keeping prices high. There may be many more people who favor denser development and who would become residents / property owners if increased development made it affordable. But potential residents don't get to vote, only actual residents do. While it's hard to prove, I would not be surprised if local zoning laws are one of the biggest impediments to social mobility. Part of the growing split between rich and poor in America is geographic. If you can make the leap into the richer places, there's much more opportunity.

by ak217 14y ago

potatolicious 14y ago

I really don't think public unions is really the blocker when it comes to development in SF - after all, why in the world would density be a chart-topping issue for, say, the teacher's union? SF residents are their own worst enemy here. Everybody loves the rows of cutesy Victorians, and everybody has a death-grudge against high-rises, or even mid-density low-rises. Every time the issue of development is brought up, people scream foul and act as if the sky is falling. Everyone has a knee-jerk opposition to building things, even though their all-time favorite thing to moan about (rent) is their own damned fault. Indeed, it makes no sense to blame this particular thing on unions and public employee's, and every sense to blame it on San Francisco's famously myopic citizenry (of which many are techies).

ak217 14y ago
> I really don't think public unions is really the blocker I agree with you, I don't think they are. What I said is that the tech workers are not represented as a class the way public employees are. > and everybody has a death-grudge against high-rises, or even mid-density low-rises. Every time the issue of development is brought up, people scream foul and act as if the sky is falling That's the thing: there's a huge segment of the population who really like high-rises and mid-density buildings, as evidenced by the wild popularity of that kind of housing. But there's a smaller, apparently more vocal segment who hate it (and perhaps have more time on their hands to make themselves heard). So the trick is to organize people who are OK with development to the point where we can repeal laws that preclude it, as well as make things like this possible: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius/article/1-dissenting-voice-holds-up-park-upgrade-3736021.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius/article/1-dissenting-vo...
- ef4 14y ago
  > there's a smaller, apparently more vocal segment who hate it (and perhaps have more time on their hands to make themselves heard). This is a general problem in local governments all over America. The people who already own real estate wield more influence, and their self-interest is in keeping prices high. There may be many more people who favor denser development and who would become residents / property owners if increased development made it affordable. But potential residents don't get to vote, only actual residents do. While it's hard to prove, I would not be surprised if local zoning laws are one of the biggest impediments to social mobility. Part of the growing split between rich and poor in America is geographic. If you can make the leap into the richer places, there's much more opportunity.