2 ms·

The ability to build should not depend on whether a boom will last...even if we could trust people that predict that it won't. The entire US continues to benefi

The ability to build should not depend on whether a boom will last...even if we could trust people that predict that it won't. The entire US continues to benefit from an overly exuberant boom in fiber-optic cables in the late 90's. San Francisco would continue to benefit from the housing stock even if all the nerds packed up and moved to Oakland.

timr 14y ago
"The ability to build should not depend on whether a boom will last" That's an assertion of fact, when it should be an argument. And it's not a particularly good argument. There are a lot of valid reasons for the city to regulate construction: fire safety, traffic control, utility provisioning, transit, urban/community planning, affordable housing, diversity, and aesthetics (just to name a few off the top of my head). These concerns mean that the city gets to control building policy, and once they do that, how they control that policy is a question of degree. Every city in the world regulates the number and type of construction permits that are issued. San Francisco may be conservative about issuing new permits, but nobody reasonable is arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to regulate construction at all. If the city regulators announced tomorrow that it was open-season for new construction in San Francisco, they'd be doing a disservice to everyone who lives here.
- saosebastiao 14y ago
  It was an argument. I don't know you could confuse it for anything else. And your counter to my argument was a straw man. I never questioned the idea that governments shouldn't be able to regulate...just that regulating growth on the prediction of a bust following a current boom is not only short sighted, but that the housing stock growth presents few burdens even in the presence of a bust.
  - timr 14y ago
    "I never questioned the idea that governments shouldn't be able to regulate...just that regulating growth on the prediction of a bust following a current boom is not only short sighted, but that the housing stock growth presents few burdens even in the presence of a bust." I think part of my original comment was confusing: the restrictions on building in San Francisco aren't new. I'm saying that it's probably not a great idea to lift those restrictions based on short-term trends. If the city were being reactionary and lowering the number of permits in response to this boom, I think that would be pretty stupid.

timr 14y ago

"The ability to build should not depend on whether a boom will last" That's an assertion of fact, when it should be an argument. And it's not a particularly good argument. There are a lot of valid reasons for the city to regulate construction: fire safety, traffic control, utility provisioning, transit, urban/community planning, affordable housing, diversity, and aesthetics (just to name a few off the top of my head). These concerns mean that the city gets to control building policy, and once they do that, how they control that policy is a question of degree. Every city in the world regulates the number and type of construction permits that are issued. San Francisco may be conservative about issuing new permits, but nobody reasonable is arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to regulate construction at all. If the city regulators announced tomorrow that it was open-season for new construction in San Francisco, they'd be doing a disservice to everyone who lives here.

saosebastiao 14y ago
It was an argument. I don't know you could confuse it for anything else. And your counter to my argument was a straw man. I never questioned the idea that governments shouldn't be able to regulate...just that regulating growth on the prediction of a bust following a current boom is not only short sighted, but that the housing stock growth presents few burdens even in the presence of a bust.
- timr 14y ago
  "I never questioned the idea that governments shouldn't be able to regulate...just that regulating growth on the prediction of a bust following a current boom is not only short sighted, but that the housing stock growth presents few burdens even in the presence of a bust." I think part of my original comment was confusing: the restrictions on building in San Francisco aren't new. I'm saying that it's probably not a great idea to lift those restrictions based on short-term trends. If the city were being reactionary and lowering the number of permits in response to this boom, I think that would be pretty stupid.