How San Francisco makes it insanely hard to build housing(sfstandard.com)
sfstandard.com
How San Francisco makes it insanely hard to build housing
https://sfstandard.com/housing-development/how-san-francisco-makes-it-insanely-hard-to-build-housing/
274 comments
> There are a lot of real issues here, but this article gives a skewed picture of the problems by focusing on a somewhat unusual example, in which the owner actively resisted the city's process with the intention of going to court.
The reason he can take the issue to court like this is because the city's "process" is illegal.
> Tillman has done plenty of media and activism, and it seems his goal was not just to get the project approved in order to proceed, but to use the legal system to clarify developers rights more broadly.
Good for him.
> Whatever you think of that approach, I think "sue all the way to a state judge and set a precedent" was always going to be slow.
Saying something is slow is meaningless if you don't compare it to something else. What avenue for reform in SF would be faster? The legal solution may not move as fast as anybody would like, but I think it will be faster than any idea anybody else might have (which seemingly mostly boils down to 'raise awareness' and 'fundraising for local politicians'.)
The reason he can take the issue to court like this is because the city's "process" is illegal.
> Tillman has done plenty of media and activism, and it seems his goal was not just to get the project approved in order to proceed, but to use the legal system to clarify developers rights more broadly.
Good for him.
> Whatever you think of that approach, I think "sue all the way to a state judge and set a precedent" was always going to be slow.
Saying something is slow is meaningless if you don't compare it to something else. What avenue for reform in SF would be faster? The legal solution may not move as fast as anybody would like, but I think it will be faster than any idea anybody else might have (which seemingly mostly boils down to 'raise awareness' and 'fundraising for local politicians'.)
> Saying something is slow is meaningless if you don't compare it to something else.
I think an obvious comparison is between Tillman's project and the (still abysmal) averages listed later in the article. I.e. Tillman's approach turned out to be slower (or a dead end) for his project; lots of projects are "faster" but still ridiculously bogged down relative to other cities.
> But eight years later and after countless community meetings, hearings, appeals, studies, a legal challenge and a court settlement—the site of the former laundromat at 2918 Mission St. still sits empty.
> That timeline is far from unusual in San Francisco, where it takes more than two years on average to permit housing projects—an unusually slow pace compared to peer cities, according to a draft study published last year.
So his approach was at least 3-4x slower than average.
> What avenue for reform in SF would be faster?
A legal challenge might be a pretty good way to achieve some reform! I also think criminal cases for corrupt city officials are appropriate. But the article isn't claiming to be about how slow it is to reform city government -- it's about how slow it is to build housing. But it picked a project to highlight which seems to have tried to do a little of both.
I think an obvious comparison is between Tillman's project and the (still abysmal) averages listed later in the article. I.e. Tillman's approach turned out to be slower (or a dead end) for his project; lots of projects are "faster" but still ridiculously bogged down relative to other cities.
> But eight years later and after countless community meetings, hearings, appeals, studies, a legal challenge and a court settlement—the site of the former laundromat at 2918 Mission St. still sits empty.
> That timeline is far from unusual in San Francisco, where it takes more than two years on average to permit housing projects—an unusually slow pace compared to peer cities, according to a draft study published last year.
So his approach was at least 3-4x slower than average.
> What avenue for reform in SF would be faster?
A legal challenge might be a pretty good way to achieve some reform! I also think criminal cases for corrupt city officials are appropriate. But the article isn't claiming to be about how slow it is to reform city government -- it's about how slow it is to build housing. But it picked a project to highlight which seems to have tried to do a little of both.
Per the embedded chart (1/2 way down, "CA Housing Development Average Permitting Timeline"), San Francisco takes an average of 975 days for a project to go from submitted to permitted.
2.6 years to get permitted is not a good faith effort on the part of the city.
That's 'if you're really serious about housing then cut NIMBY rights back to a reasonable level tomorrow' levels of fucked up.
2.6 years to get permitted is not a good faith effort on the part of the city.
That's 'if you're really serious about housing then cut NIMBY rights back to a reasonable level tomorrow' levels of fucked up.
Yeah, I'm no lawyer, but there are many many cases of court orders leading what would otherwise be monumentally long legislative actions. Slavery, voting rights, eminent domain, asset forfeiture, and tons of others.
Housing isn't in the bill of rights directly, but equal protection is.
Basically, SF housing comes down to a battle of:
- I have a right to defend my housing equity/wealth (currently winning and will continue to win legislatively because the money is here)
- I have a right to a house (the moral choice, but far and away the less-monied, and therefore zero chance of legislative redress)
It isn't just SF, this is fundamentally a generational war across the entire US, practically everywhere.
Housing isn't in the bill of rights directly, but equal protection is.
Basically, SF housing comes down to a battle of:
- I have a right to defend my housing equity/wealth (currently winning and will continue to win legislatively because the money is here)
- I have a right to a house (the moral choice, but far and away the less-monied, and therefore zero chance of legislative redress)
It isn't just SF, this is fundamentally a generational war across the entire US, practically everywhere.
It’s more a fight between “I want my area to stay the same” and “I want to develop my property” - those wanting housing have effectively no say at all.
> those wanting housing have effectively no say at all.
One of the points that William Fischel makes in Zoning Rules! is that when a developer responds to the profit motive from the market, he is representing the interests of future tenants who need housing. Conversely, when San Francisco Leftists oppose developments because they oppose developers making a profit, they are unwittingly opposing the interests of future tenants. This is part of what makes housing in San Francisco such an unsolved problem: those who claim to represent tenants seeking affordable housing (such as the trade group CCHO) actively fight private development.
One of the points that William Fischel makes in Zoning Rules! is that when a developer responds to the profit motive from the market, he is representing the interests of future tenants who need housing. Conversely, when San Francisco Leftists oppose developments because they oppose developers making a profit, they are unwittingly opposing the interests of future tenants. This is part of what makes housing in San Francisco such an unsolved problem: those who claim to represent tenants seeking affordable housing (such as the trade group CCHO) actively fight private development.
Saying something is slow is meaningless if you don't compare it to something else. What avenue for reform in SF would be faster?
Huh? The article headline and the article are about the speed of housing approval, not about the speed of "avenues for reform in SF".
The reason he can take the issue to court like this is because the city's "process" is illegal.
That may be true but that's a different issue also. The original claim that SF's process is slow, not that it's illegal (even if it is illegal).
Huh? The article headline and the article are about the speed of housing approval, not about the speed of "avenues for reform in SF".
The reason he can take the issue to court like this is because the city's "process" is illegal.
That may be true but that's a different issue also. The original claim that SF's process is slow, not that it's illegal (even if it is illegal).
He's an activist. His objective is to affect change in the system, not to get something built. Trying to build something is the pretext for a lawsuit that aims to change the system. The proper comparison is comparing his method of activism to other methods of activism.
If he simply wanted to build something fast, then he'd bribe whoever needs bribing and nothing would change.
If he simply wanted to build something fast, then he'd bribe whoever needs bribing and nothing would change.
I mean, I think he did originally _also_ want to get something built.
But your point is exactly why I think the obstacles to building in SF are better illustrated with a project that was just trying to get something built.
We can have separate opinions about whether Tillman's efforts were good versus whether he's a good illustrative example the obstacles in the system.
We can have separate opinions about whether Tillman's efforts were good versus whether he's a good illustrative example the obstacles in the system.
The "approval process" was that city officials demanded he bribe local shakedown outfits. So of course he resisted it.
The reason that Tillman is the only person to ever say no to the shakedown is that he isn't a developer, and he doesn't have other properties he wants to build, and he has no interest in maintaining a working relationship with the city.
The reason that Tillman is the only person to ever say no to the shakedown is that he isn't a developer, and he doesn't have other properties he wants to build, and he has no interest in maintaining a working relationship with the city.
> The reason that Tillman is the only person to ever say no to the shakedown is that he isn't a developer, and he doesn't have other properties he wants to build, and he has no interest in maintaining a working relationship with the city.
Sounds to me like the perfect person to expose it for what it is.
Sounds to me like the perfect person to expose it for what it is.
> in which the owner actively resisted the city's process
Resisted the city's ILLEGAL(under state law) process.
Resisted the city's ILLEGAL(under state law) process.
What you are doing here is a form of victim blaming.
I'm not blaming Tillman. My criticism is with the article author Sarah wright. I'm suggesting that the article could have picked a different, more representative project if it wanted to point out the obstacles to development. As the stats in the article show, the _average_ case is already very bad. Most projects don't become the target of this much focused attention from community groups. Most projects don't "set out to get the project denied at the Board of Supervisors".
A SF school district is trying to solve the teacher housing problem by asking families to rent out rooms in their homes to teachers...
https://news.yahoo.com/san-francisco-families-asked-loan-162...
So - prospective teachers are expected to go to college, get into debt, get a master's in education, then get a job where they still have to live the life of a broke college student.
However, more market-rate housing won't solve the problem either, as teacher pay isn't enough to afford such housing. I suppose below-market housing could be reserved for teachers and other city employees, although then it has little impact on the size of the homeless population... It's all kind of dystopian.
https://news.yahoo.com/san-francisco-families-asked-loan-162...
So - prospective teachers are expected to go to college, get into debt, get a master's in education, then get a job where they still have to live the life of a broke college student.
However, more market-rate housing won't solve the problem either, as teacher pay isn't enough to afford such housing. I suppose below-market housing could be reserved for teachers and other city employees, although then it has little impact on the size of the homeless population... It's all kind of dystopian.
More housing of any kind is a benefit. It reduces competition.
Market rate housing helps everyone. If there is a brand new market rate condo for a meta employee to live in, they won't be competing for a shabby 1 br, and a teacher might afford it.
Market rate housing helps everyone. If there is a brand new market rate condo for a meta employee to live in, they won't be competing for a shabby 1 br, and a teacher might afford it.
San Francisco has a building height limit of 40ft. They could build sufficient housing for everyone but have made it impossible.
You can build a lot of housing under 40ft. There are a lot of housing options in between "single family home" and "skyscraper apartment building".
And most of the land zoned residential is zoned for single family only
Not anymore, anywhere in CA: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...
Only in name. SB-9 can be sidestepped by rezoning to RH-2 (two family), but adding requirements that make building anything other than single family infeasible. E.g. https://www.zfplaw.com/blog/2021/12/thinking-of-utilizing-sb...
Recalcitrant cities have maliciously complied with the law and are preventing economically feasible housing from being built by leveraging SB-9.
You're agreeing with him.
San Francisco has a limited area that is already fairly built-up. To increase the housing supply, the city can't just build anything, it has to build in a way that increases the density of housing. For example if you build four story building where every floor is just one unit, you haven't done much - and San Francisco's high housing costs and appeal to the very wealthy makes such luxury condo development very appealing to private developers. Moreover, developers see the large picture and see that if the housing shortage was actually solved they'd lose the premium they now get so this gives them a further incentive to not actually increase total density by much.
It increases competition if people who were forced to commute are given a space without an increase in available units.
Then it still reduces competition for houses within commuting distance of SF.
You don't build "market rate" or "below market rate" housing. You build housing and let the market figure itself out. There are enough old buildings in the city that will come down in price the moment there are better options available.
It's crazy how people forget supply and demand concepts the moment we start talking about housing.
The argument that building housing is useless because it's often more expensive housing, is absolutely bonkers. It increases supply, it is positive for everyone, even those that can't afford it and it liberates a space for them that would have been taken by that high income person.
The argument that building housing is useless because it's often more expensive housing, is absolutely bonkers. It increases supply, it is positive for everyone, even those that can't afford it and it liberates a space for them that would have been taken by that high income person.
Of course what you're saying is true.
However, you're dealing with people that believe a market economy is fundamentally unethical. They believe that benefits such as housing should be assigned entirely according to the individual's need, not how much money they are willing or able to spend on it.
And who better than them as the judge of neediness?
So of course it makes sense that you have people protesting this development in the article, demanding that 100% of the units be "below market rate," despite the obvious economic unfeasibility of this. After all, profit taking or "rent seeking" is inherently unethical and exploitative.
They may have prevented 75 units from getting built, but at least they stopped a developer exploiting people's need for housing for profit. And, as a bonus, they send a message to other developers that you defy them at your peril.
However, you're dealing with people that believe a market economy is fundamentally unethical. They believe that benefits such as housing should be assigned entirely according to the individual's need, not how much money they are willing or able to spend on it.
And who better than them as the judge of neediness?
So of course it makes sense that you have people protesting this development in the article, demanding that 100% of the units be "below market rate," despite the obvious economic unfeasibility of this. After all, profit taking or "rent seeking" is inherently unethical and exploitative.
They may have prevented 75 units from getting built, but at least they stopped a developer exploiting people's need for housing for profit. And, as a bonus, they send a message to other developers that you defy them at your peril.
Market forces will not fix this.
This requires planning, and markets do not make plans
This requires planning, and markets do not make plans
I'm sure the Californian Politburo will sort out their planned economy woes soon.
People often make the mistake of focusing on the long tail of market failures with the intent of more government intervention to fix them, without thinking about the 98% of times that markets deliver additional wealth to everyone involved.
Yup. If I talk about a compression algorithm and claim you can run it multiple times and always get a smaller file out the other end, I'll be instantly reminded of the Pigeon Hole Principle.
But then we talk about houses and occupants, and apparently that goes out the window. It's maddening.
But then we talk about houses and occupants, and apparently that goes out the window. It's maddening.
I wonder what the impact of investors with bottomless pockets for real-estate is on supply and demand?
If such investors exist wonderful. Keep building housing until the national debt is eliminated!
In reality at some point those investors will stop buying, at the point the return begins to diminish.
In reality at some point those investors will stop buying, at the point the return begins to diminish.
At what point? How does that eliminate the national debt? How do people get into houses?
If there’s investors to buy houses forever just keep building them and selling them to them. The government can do it and the national debt will be gone!
Obviously, this doesn’t work because the investors are limited and will stop buying if they can’t make money.
Obviously, this doesn’t work because the investors are limited and will stop buying if they can’t make money.
Indeed. Housing is a substitutable good. When higher end units are not available the wealthy occupy what would have been working class units, driving up the price.
The solution on the level of markets is pretty simple. San Francisco builds enough units to meet demand. That would involve approving building projects that are very high-density per acre regardless of ostensible affordability.
Of course, neither home owners nor developers want this - home owners want to preserve their home values and developers want to build a few luxury condos - both aiming to profit from the housing shortage rather than solving it. The solution is actual public housing on a large scale but naturally the safe forces would work to slander and hold this approach back.
Of course, neither home owners nor developers want this - home owners want to preserve their home values and developers want to build a few luxury condos - both aiming to profit from the housing shortage rather than solving it. The solution is actual public housing on a large scale but naturally the safe forces would work to slander and hold this approach back.
It's entirely possible that home owners are NIMBYing this due to perceived impacts on their house values.
But I'm not sure you're right about developers wanting to just develop a few luxury condos and artificially restrict the number of units they build. It seems like that would only work if there was a near monopoly on who was allowed / able to build in SF.
They make money on building units; not building units is not really benefitting them.
Per the article, the per-unit costs of all the planning / permitting / construction / land / special interest earmarks make the per-door cost to be the $1 million quoted. That already puts that into "luxury condo" price range. It might be that the ROI might be better for the developers if they decide to spend an extra $100k on premium tile so it really is "luxury". It might be that selling them as non-luxury really isn't profitable. After all, if as a customer you're going to need to spend at least $1.05 million on the unit (break even for developer + 5%), wouldn't you rather get a $1.25 million luxury apartment for not that much more? (1mill + 100k tile + 14% profit). For the developer in my made up scenario, they're making 3x the profit, while you're "only" spending 20% more on the more desirable luxury version.
I'm sure if the permitting process were quicker / easier, the barrier to entry for developers of all sizes would be lower. The per-door cost would be lower, and you wouldn't need a massive war chest of cash to ride the 3-year permit process. This would also make the economics on non-luxury units make sense.
But I'm not sure you're right about developers wanting to just develop a few luxury condos and artificially restrict the number of units they build. It seems like that would only work if there was a near monopoly on who was allowed / able to build in SF.
They make money on building units; not building units is not really benefitting them.
Per the article, the per-unit costs of all the planning / permitting / construction / land / special interest earmarks make the per-door cost to be the $1 million quoted. That already puts that into "luxury condo" price range. It might be that the ROI might be better for the developers if they decide to spend an extra $100k on premium tile so it really is "luxury". It might be that selling them as non-luxury really isn't profitable. After all, if as a customer you're going to need to spend at least $1.05 million on the unit (break even for developer + 5%), wouldn't you rather get a $1.25 million luxury apartment for not that much more? (1mill + 100k tile + 14% profit). For the developer in my made up scenario, they're making 3x the profit, while you're "only" spending 20% more on the more desirable luxury version.
I'm sure if the permitting process were quicker / easier, the barrier to entry for developers of all sizes would be lower. The per-door cost would be lower, and you wouldn't need a massive war chest of cash to ride the 3-year permit process. This would also make the economics on non-luxury units make sense.
But I'm not sure you're right about developers wanting to just develop a few luxury condos and artificially restrict the number of units they build.
I shouldn't have implied there necessarily was anything artificial or conspiratorial involved. I mean, some times there can be but it's quite possible that building a few high priced luxury units is the most profitable decision for an individual builder. Luxury condos cost a lot to build and can be sold for a high markup over costs. A many-unit building for average people is not going to have the same markup so even if you build more units, your total profit can be less.
Per the article, the per-unit costs of all the planning / permitting / construction / land / special interest earmarks make the per-door cost to be the $1 million quoted.
So you're saying regulations push builders to only build luxury housing - which is part of my point. I mean, lots of producers in lots of industries cry about regulations that increase their markup, an increase they pass to the consumer. They cry all the way to the bank about that.
I shouldn't have implied there necessarily was anything artificial or conspiratorial involved. I mean, some times there can be but it's quite possible that building a few high priced luxury units is the most profitable decision for an individual builder. Luxury condos cost a lot to build and can be sold for a high markup over costs. A many-unit building for average people is not going to have the same markup so even if you build more units, your total profit can be less.
Per the article, the per-unit costs of all the planning / permitting / construction / land / special interest earmarks make the per-door cost to be the $1 million quoted.
So you're saying regulations push builders to only build luxury housing - which is part of my point. I mean, lots of producers in lots of industries cry about regulations that increase their markup, an increase they pass to the consumer. They cry all the way to the bank about that.
> home owners want to preserve their home values.
I mean…can you blame them? Who really wants to lose money?
>The solution is actual public housing on a large scale
Please, no. Public housing has been an abysmal and utter failure, let’s not repeat mistakes that we know don’t work.
I mean…can you blame them? Who really wants to lose money?
>The solution is actual public housing on a large scale
Please, no. Public housing has been an abysmal and utter failure, let’s not repeat mistakes that we know don’t work.
Rezoning land from 40ft height limit to unlimited would probably 10x the land value, in SF.
It seems obvious that reducing zoning would increase the value for the owner so I think blaming them for being stupid works out.
It seems obvious that reducing zoning would increase the value for the owner so I think blaming them for being stupid works out.
The idea is that construction barriers are removed so that the normal housing market is cheap enough for teachers to afford. As in, enough housing is built so that a teacher can just browse craiglist and find housing they can afford.
As someone forced to move away from the bay area because of housing costs, as soon as housing comes down many of us expats (who have been able to build a sizable nest egg by NOT living in the bay area) will also compete to return. So plan for enough new units for current need + people forced to leave.
At some point increases in density will change the character of the city enough that some won’t want to return. If the Bay Area becomes Singapore it won’t be the Bay Area anymore.
Sure but the inevitable consequence of this is higher housing costs. If there's only 800k housing units, and a million people want to live there then 200k people are going to fail to find housing. There's no escaping the mismatch between supply and demand. If you don't build more housing, the character of the city will change too: it will become uniformly high-income since that's the only people who can afford to live there.
It's already on that path, and they either need to embrace it (pay janitors in San Francisco $150k a year) or change.
My personal suspicion is that the "desirable type" of town that San Francisco was is actually an unstable state, and the only way to permanently have it is to regularly move.
My personal suspicion is that the "desirable type" of town that San Francisco was is actually an unstable state, and the only way to permanently have it is to regularly move.
I don't think that will work. There's very little elasticity in the market, so to first order every dollar pumped into wages will be turned around and put into housing and drive up prices even further. There's only two ways out of this hole: you drive people away or you build more housing.
sounds like a great argument for being a nimby.
Well, it's still CA, so as soon as people realize there is a house for $250k in the Bay Area, or rental options for sub $1500, they will start moving there again. Not just one house, but even a million new houses will cause people to move there.
It's really unlikely that an extra million spaces for housing would not change the current market price.
But EVEN if this was true that there is someone outside waiting to move back for when prices drop just a little, then now we have at least a million more people that can afford to live in a city close to their work, instead of being forced out.
More housing is better than less. There are no scenarios where it's worse for market price to build more housing.
But EVEN if this was true that there is someone outside waiting to move back for when prices drop just a little, then now we have at least a million more people that can afford to live in a city close to their work, instead of being forced out.
More housing is better than less. There are no scenarios where it's worse for market price to build more housing.
> then now we have at least a million more people that can afford to live in a city close to their work, instead of being forced out.
This is one of the most underrated aspects of the housing shortage. Some of the people harmed by the housing crunch are people paying significant portions of their income in the form of rents. But most are the people who aren't able to move to economically dynamic metros in the first place, and are thus relegated to living in a place with worse job prospects. The latter group has no voice in housing policy, and is effectively disenfranchised in housing politics despite feelings its effects.
This is one of the most underrated aspects of the housing shortage. Some of the people harmed by the housing crunch are people paying significant portions of their income in the form of rents. But most are the people who aren't able to move to economically dynamic metros in the first place, and are thus relegated to living in a place with worse job prospects. The latter group has no voice in housing policy, and is effectively disenfranchised in housing politics despite feelings its effects.
Anyone can visit, but staying here means having a job. The migration to the Bay Area is because cities approved the construction of so many office buildings (and continue to do so).
It's a game of musical chairs; there's no solution to 40 years of a multi-thousand annual shortfall in new units that doesn't involve building those units or otherwise making the equivalent housing capacity available.
The market rate is determined by supply. If you ban the production of new cars, you'll soon find that teachers can't afford a market rate 4 year old Honda either. The whole point of building new housing is that reduces market rate.
The easy fix is to let people build more housing, and pay their teachers more.
The easy fix is to let people build more housing, and pay their teachers more.
> more market-rate housing won't solve the problem either
If we created 10 billion homes priced at market-rate built at present costs, what do you anticipate the market rate would be?
If we created 10 billion homes priced at market-rate built at present costs, what do you anticipate the market rate would be?
> prospective teachers are expected to go to college, get into debt, get a master's in education, then get a job where they still have to live the life of a broke college student.
On the plus side, they do qualify for student loan forgiveness and if they stay until retirement, they get a pension. Public employees sacrifice current pay for future security.
On the plus side, they do qualify for student loan forgiveness and if they stay until retirement, they get a pension. Public employees sacrifice current pay for future security.
Depends on how much more market-rate housing is created, right? Create enough and the market rate goes down
That's Milpitas, not San Francisco.
But it won't have the Milpitas monster to worry about! https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073393/
Just to be clear, they don’t actually expect housing to be rented out to teachers in this way. What you do see in many cities around the bay is teacher specific adu and dwelling permitting. It seems to me the idea is to not actually make more, but to have a fig leaf where they can say to the state that their housing element is in compliance.
I don’t understand what drives people into thinking that housing is the only thing that isn’t priced based on supply and demand.
What if they doubled teacher pay...?
If you think, as I do, that this is absurd join other like-minded people in San Francisco's 2022 YIMBY Prom Party: https://yimbyaction.org/2021/events/yimby-prom-gala-bay-area...
There will be drinks and appetizers, as well as the bulk of the Yimby and Yimby-adjacent people in the Bay Area.
The funds raised go exactly to fight the type of cronyism and insanity that makes SF so ossified and housing impossible to build.
(if you do buy tickets, write huevosabio as referral and DM me to meet there :))
There will be drinks and appetizers, as well as the bulk of the Yimby and Yimby-adjacent people in the Bay Area.
The funds raised go exactly to fight the type of cronyism and insanity that makes SF so ossified and housing impossible to build.
(if you do buy tickets, write huevosabio as referral and DM me to meet there :))
> The funds raised go exactly to fight the type of cronyism and insanity that makes SF so ossified and housing impossible to build.
Is there a detailed breakdown of how these funds are allocated exactly? I see that the mayor is the star VIP guest, is this function for her re-election?
Is there a detailed breakdown of how these funds are allocated exactly? I see that the mayor is the star VIP guest, is this function for her re-election?
> (if you do buy tickets, write huevosabio as referral and DM me to meet there :))
it is so weird when people do this on HN with no contact info in their profiles ;)
it is so weird when people do this on HN with no contact info in their profiles ;)
> it is so weird when people do this on HN with no contact info in their profiles ;)
I googled their username, clicked through to github, clicked through to repositories, clicked through to personal page (first repository on list), clicked through to cv folder, clicked through to cv pdf, and there they have a phone number and email address.
All of this is publicly available but takes at least four clicks but most importantly, I am not sure whether it is the same person!
I googled their username, clicked through to github, clicked through to repositories, clicked through to personal page (first repository on list), clicked through to cv folder, clicked through to cv pdf, and there they have a phone number and email address.
All of this is publicly available but takes at least four clicks but most importantly, I am not sure whether it is the same person!
Lol!
Reach out to me at [email protected]
Reach out to me at [email protected]
You are clearly not in their backyard. :-)
Good point!
email: [email protected]
email: [email protected]
Does YimbyAction.org support the 'inclusionary housing' permitting requirement cited in above article? (Based on the site, certainly seems so.)
The article describes these mechanisms as the "800-pound gorilla" in what makes development in SF unaffordable (and therefore economically unviable), so having trouble aligning this advocacy with the root cause of the housing shortage.
What am I missing?
The article describes these mechanisms as the "800-pound gorilla" in what makes development in SF unaffordable (and therefore economically unviable), so having trouble aligning this advocacy with the root cause of the housing shortage.
What am I missing?
YA is against the inclusionary housing requirement _as implemented by SF_. It is often used as a type of extortion to outright dissuade new construction.
More broadly, in my experience, Yimbys have mixed-to-negative opinion on inclusionary zoning since it is essentially a tax on new construction, though there are a non-trivial amount of Yimbys who think its a good way to produce subsidized housing.
I personally think we should not be taxing new projects implicitly or explicitly at all, and instead we should use property taxes (especially land value taxes) to subsidize housing either via vouchers or via publicly built housing.
The reality of the CA political system makes all of this very hard to achieve and we often find ourselves settling on taking small but achievable steps.
More broadly, in my experience, Yimbys have mixed-to-negative opinion on inclusionary zoning since it is essentially a tax on new construction, though there are a non-trivial amount of Yimbys who think its a good way to produce subsidized housing.
I personally think we should not be taxing new projects implicitly or explicitly at all, and instead we should use property taxes (especially land value taxes) to subsidize housing either via vouchers or via publicly built housing.
The reality of the CA political system makes all of this very hard to achieve and we often find ourselves settling on taking small but achievable steps.
It's not one 800lb gorilla but a whole troupe of them mentioned in the article:
- a capricious and arbitrary permitting process
- multiple opportunities for groups to cause mischief, with some like Calle 24 barely disguising that they are shakedown rackets
- excessively restrictive zoning
It essentially boils down to this: there are haves (people who own their own homes like many SF supervisors and like to see them appreciate, and Boomers benefitting from rent control and paying a pittance) who have political power and new entrants who have none. The solution will not come from within, but from the State preempting local control, like Scott Wiener's heroic efforts in Sacramento like SB35. If a housing project is 50% affordable, it can skip most of the rigmarole, as occurred in Potrero Hill:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/How-one-S-F-housing-p...
- a capricious and arbitrary permitting process
- multiple opportunities for groups to cause mischief, with some like Calle 24 barely disguising that they are shakedown rackets
- excessively restrictive zoning
It essentially boils down to this: there are haves (people who own their own homes like many SF supervisors and like to see them appreciate, and Boomers benefitting from rent control and paying a pittance) who have political power and new entrants who have none. The solution will not come from within, but from the State preempting local control, like Scott Wiener's heroic efforts in Sacramento like SB35. If a housing project is 50% affordable, it can skip most of the rigmarole, as occurred in Potrero Hill:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/How-one-S-F-housing-p...
Do the YIMBY groups support dropping environmental impact studies for new buildings?
For the most part, archaic and ad-hoc requirements yes. For example, you'll often see us complain about CEQA.
In an ideal YIMBY world, the government would just give a clear checklist of what can be built (based on safety and environmental requirements) and as long as your project follows that, no one should be able to delay or oppose your building.
What we have instead is arbitrary impact studies that anyone can throw to a developer and snooze the project indefinitely.
In an ideal YIMBY world, the government would just give a clear checklist of what can be built (based on safety and environmental requirements) and as long as your project follows that, no one should be able to delay or oppose your building.
What we have instead is arbitrary impact studies that anyone can throw to a developer and snooze the project indefinitely.
The NZ government (bipartisan decision) has recently made all city councils allow densification by default. “The so-called Medium Density Residential Standard will require the country’s most populous cities to permit up to three stories and three dwellings on all existing residential parcels of land. The policy would allow a parcel with a detached single-family dwelling to be redeveloped into row houses or a small apartment block.”[3].
> as long as your project follows [the planning and building codes], no one should be able to delay or oppose your building.
That is how the regulations are designed in Christchurch, New Zealand: automatic consent if you stick within the codes. You require consent if you need to do something outside of the default rules, and NIMBYs can affect that consent process, so the default rules really really matter.
Housing prices were fairly insane levels[1] but are now reducing[2] (although interest rates are also affecting that).
[1] March 22: Auckland is eighth least affordable city for housing in new rankings https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/real-estate/1280272...
[2] Sept 22: NZ tumbles down international house price growth ranks https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/real-estate/1298444...
[3] New Zealand’s bipartisan housing reforms offer a model to other countries https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2022/01/24/new-zea...
> as long as your project follows [the planning and building codes], no one should be able to delay or oppose your building.
That is how the regulations are designed in Christchurch, New Zealand: automatic consent if you stick within the codes. You require consent if you need to do something outside of the default rules, and NIMBYs can affect that consent process, so the default rules really really matter.
Housing prices were fairly insane levels[1] but are now reducing[2] (although interest rates are also affecting that).
[1] March 22: Auckland is eighth least affordable city for housing in new rankings https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/real-estate/1280272...
[2] Sept 22: NZ tumbles down international house price growth ranks https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/real-estate/1298444...
[3] New Zealand’s bipartisan housing reforms offer a model to other countries https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2022/01/24/new-zea...
I'd imagine the tradeoff here is that impact studies allow for more variation, while generally clear checklists might need to include overgenerally strict items in order to prevent problems that might only be applicable in a few situations.
I suppose the middle ground would be automatic green light for developers who can tick off every box on the overgeneral checklist + impact studies for people who want exceptions.
I suppose the middle ground would be automatic green light for developers who can tick off every box on the overgeneral checklist + impact studies for people who want exceptions.
How is that a middle ground? How does it address the "snooze forever" exploit?
The overall endpoints for this discussion are "no oversight, laissez faire all the development!" and "no development, snooze forever."
The endpoints suggested by the comment I responded to were "impact study" (with risks of indefinite timeline) and "greenlight checklist."
I responded with this suggestion: greenlight checklist, with the option for impact study to justify exceptions to that checklist. Would-be builders get a choice between the two.
The reasoning is that any greenlight checklist that's sufficient to do the job of custom impact studies will probably need to impose requirements that may not be practically necessary for every project. So, let people choose to check all the boxes (even some that might not be strictly necessary in order to avoid negative impacts) OR have a custom impact study done in order to receive specific exceptions.
How is that not middle ground in between either set of endpoints?
The endpoints suggested by the comment I responded to were "impact study" (with risks of indefinite timeline) and "greenlight checklist."
I responded with this suggestion: greenlight checklist, with the option for impact study to justify exceptions to that checklist. Would-be builders get a choice between the two.
The reasoning is that any greenlight checklist that's sufficient to do the job of custom impact studies will probably need to impose requirements that may not be practically necessary for every project. So, let people choose to check all the boxes (even some that might not be strictly necessary in order to avoid negative impacts) OR have a custom impact study done in order to receive specific exceptions.
How is that not middle ground in between either set of endpoints?
clear checklist of what can be built (based on safety and environmental requirements)
Such a thing doesn’t and cannot exist. One of the (many) purposes of environmental impact studies is to stop (for example) a new golf course from destroying a bunch of wetlands habitat for endangered species. If the species can only be found in one small area then there’s no rubber-stamp process that will protect it. These projects need to be studied in detail, on a case by case basis, to determine what impact they’ll have on the environment. There are whole fields of engineering that deal with this subject.
Such a thing doesn’t and cannot exist. One of the (many) purposes of environmental impact studies is to stop (for example) a new golf course from destroying a bunch of wetlands habitat for endangered species. If the species can only be found in one small area then there’s no rubber-stamp process that will protect it. These projects need to be studied in detail, on a case by case basis, to determine what impact they’ll have on the environment. There are whole fields of engineering that deal with this subject.
Ok, but that's not what OP is advocating for. At the very least there should be streamlined CEQA processes applicable for certain developments in certain areas. IE -- it is not at all crazy for a 4/8/10-plex townhome-style development to be built on a piece of land in San Francisco that currently contains a single family home, or an undeveloped paved parking lot.
Individual parcels of land that are especially exceptional within such areas can be marked as such (think historical landmark designations, though that process is a whole separate can of worms).
Yet currently San Francisco has some of the kafka-esque building requirements for the most common types of buildings AND 4 private golf courses on what would most certainly be classified as protected wetlands today. So clearly today's CEQA isn't even working by your own scenario.
Individual parcels of land that are especially exceptional within such areas can be marked as such (think historical landmark designations, though that process is a whole separate can of worms).
Yet currently San Francisco has some of the kafka-esque building requirements for the most common types of buildings AND 4 private golf courses on what would most certainly be classified as protected wetlands today. So clearly today's CEQA isn't even working by your own scenario.
The problem is that this consideration has been weaponized to the point of abuse so bad that some people cynically no longer see deferring to these considerations as something legitimate.
In addition, in the crazy red state I now live, people are slowly filling anything that could be considered wetlands on their property to proactively protect their property rights. So this consideration is now RESPONSIBLE for active wetland destruction and a hostile attitude by many towards wetlands on their property.
In addition, in the crazy red state I now live, people are slowly filling anything that could be considered wetlands on their property to proactively protect their property rights. So this consideration is now RESPONSIBLE for active wetland destruction and a hostile attitude by many towards wetlands on their property.
SF isn't pristine nature. It's entirely a man made construct.
I doubt you're going to find any meaningful insights from a environmental impact study of a standardized 5-over-1 built in a suburb.
We should ban new golf courses, and reclaim 90% of all golf courses completely. It's a game that uses a ridiculous amount of resources that benefits very little. I'd rather see housing built on existing golf courses.
Fortunately, we don't employ eminent domain because some guy on the internet is sure that something better should be done with the land.
Golf courses generally underpay property tax and services, so you could try and tax them out of existence, the ones which aren't municipal at least. Progressive water bills is an option for the dryer parts of the country.
This would be a quick education in the role which golf actually plays in society, I expect.
Golf courses generally underpay property tax and services, so you could try and tax them out of existence, the ones which aren't municipal at least. Progressive water bills is an option for the dryer parts of the country.
This would be a quick education in the role which golf actually plays in society, I expect.
Just combine the golf courses and cemeteries! Problem solved.
This conversation is about housing, not golf courses. In particular, it's about housing in areas where housing is already built.
> If the species can only be found in one small area then there’s no rubber-stamp process that will protect it.
So don't zone that area for housing. Problem solved.
> If the species can only be found in one small area then there’s no rubber-stamp process that will protect it.
So don't zone that area for housing. Problem solved.
> Policies in this category include “by right” or “as of right” permitting, permit streamlining, California’s SB 35, and reform of environmental review processes.
https://yimbyaction.org/2021/solutions/
https://yimbyaction.org/2021/solutions/
[deleted]
I read some time ago an interview with a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and an article about the YIMBY movement:
• https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/11/san-francisco-sociali...
• https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/01/the-only-thing-worse-...
I'd be very interested if anyone knows anything further about the topic or knows of any replies to the criticisms levied.
• https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/11/san-francisco-sociali...
• https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/01/the-only-thing-worse-...
I'd be very interested if anyone knows anything further about the topic or knows of any replies to the criticisms levied.
I see it similarly in Germany. More social housing build by the government is needed to enable people with lower income living there.
We did that less and less in Germany and now we pay the price. Higher rents and less room to live in.
We did that less and less in Germany and now we pay the price. Higher rents and less room to live in.
Thank you so much, @ZoomerCretin and @huevosabio!
I think this has left me with only more questions, and I might ask a few of them later when I have a moment, but I wanted to say I appreciate you taking the time to reply.
I think this has left me with only more questions, and I might ask a few of them later when I have a moment, but I wanted to say I appreciate you taking the time to reply.
Robinson: "It’s a gentrifying city..."
"""Gentrification""" being used unironically should be the only thing you need to know about how far Robinson's mental model of the housing market is from reality.
Preston: "…is that they’re market fundamentalists. And they believe that simply creating more housing for rich people will ultimately trickle down to people who aren’t rich—maybe in a decade, maybe 50 years."
YIMBYs are not libertarian market fundamentalists. We believe that the principal cause of the housing crisis is that there is a shortage of housing. Simply removing zoning restrictions would not fix the situation for poor people, but that's not what YIMBYs argue. They want a mix of zoning reform, expanded housing vouchers, and yes, public housing.
Let's suppose that we only expand housing vouchers. We have rules forbidding increasing the supply of housing, and a policy that subsidizes demand. What happens to price? It goes up. How many more people do we house? No one, because you can't subsidize your way out of a shortage, and you can't redistribute your way out of a shortage.
Let's suppose that we only build public housing. We still have rules forbidding increasing density. Unless "build public housing" means building public single family home lot sprawl, nothing will get built. _The same zoning restrictions that prevent new private housing also prevent new public housing._
Let's suppose that we only reform zoning. Now it's legal to build more housing, and people will spend money building taller buildings with far more units for more people to live in. Since apartment units are built for far less money per-unit than detached homes, this lowers the price floor that housing can be offered at, allowing housing to become cheaper if we build enough housing to put serious dents in the vacancy rate. We're still leaving out the poor, since housing does take time to filter.
Zoning is not the end-all be-all of policy tools for fixing the housing crisis. YIMBYs agree. But it is the first step, and the single biggest tool in our policy toolbox. Everything starts with supply, and the biggest constraint on supply is zoning. After that, you can clean up the remaining market failures (i.e. homelessness, rent-burdened low-income people) with housing vouchers and much smaller public housing projects than you would need without zoning reform.
Preston: "For all the talk in this city, even a city that’s more progressive on some issues, for all the talk when it comes down to who our economy caters to—not just in housing, but especially in housing—it caters to the wealthy."
Preston literally blocked a 400+ unit housing development _on a valet parking lot_. _He is_ the wealthy person being catered to by the establishment.
Preston: "I thought we could control the rents a bit and have some protections in place. Maybe this can work if we just make developers do a handful of affordable units when they build, and maybe we’ll get there somehow."
Developers don't build out of the kindness of their hearts, they do it for money. If they're forced to subsidize too many "affordable units" with market rate units, the development won't be profitable, so they don't build. If the rent they can collect is capped early, they don't build. Remember, in California, because of Proposition 13, there are enough property owners paying 40-year old property tax valuations that renting is frequently 5-8x cheaper than buying. Literally some properties that rent for $4k/month (@ $600/month property tax) sell at prices of $15k/month mortgage + $3.5k/month property tax. In order for new build rental housing to be competitive with old rental housing, you need to build a shit ton of it to get the per-unit costs down since you're already paying far higher property taxes than landlords who have owned the same property for 30-50 years. San Francisco simply is not zoned for the density of housing that would make a lot more construction financially feasible. Add on rent control and making 30-50% of units "affordable", and you make it even harder for new housing to be built.
Preston: "Well, I think the city and government has to be in the business of actually creating housing for people that is not for profit, right?"
Public housing is good. However, the city and government will be building housing at per-unit prices that would be financially infeasible for private developers and renting them below cost. Even at-cost, these units would be far more expensive than they need to be. You still haven't fixed the underlying cause that you've put so many artificial constraints in front of building housing that you've made it far more expensive than it needs to be. Making the government pay $900k to build a unit and renting it for $800/month and just throwing the entire state budget into doing this _could_ solve the problem, yes, but I think we're better off making new units cost less than $900k to build than we are throwing money that could be better spent on this.
Preston: "I think that’s certainly a factor here. We commissioned a report—and we’re expecting to announce it fairly soon—from the budget, legislative analysts looking at vacancies in San Francisco. And there are a ton of vacancies. A lot of newly constructed places like these luxury condos that sit particularly in the South of Market neighborhood in San Francisco just sit empty, and it’s exactly as you’re describing. You can see at night what’s lit up and what isn’t."
People don't have their lights on at night, therefore their units are empty/vacant? Does he leave all of his indoor lights on when he goes out at night? I certainly don't.
Preston's Board of Supervisors actually passed a vacancy tax on units. It excluded luxury properties (Single family homes) like his. Take that for what you will.
Robinson: "If you have an apartment building with 50 units occupied by working-class tenants, and it’s demolished, and they build something that has 100 units, but it’s 100 people from Palo Alto who come and move in, you have the aggregate number of total units increased—you say we’ve got more housing—but you’ve actually managed to displace more working-class people from the city in the process."
If they're rent-controlled, they can't force the tenants out. If it's not, those working-class tenants were forced out by rent increases or general cost of living costs long ago. More units are better, because the root of the housing crisis is the shortage.
Preston: "Right. It’s always the loopholes around rent control that are used to attack rent control. There’s just such a disconnect between working-class folks and the pundits on rent control, right? You go to all these economics departments, and you can find lots of professors who are going to tell you how rent controls are bad and distort the market. A few of them will give you some support. But generally, you go and talk to people who are living in rent-controlled apartments, or live in San Francisco, where there would be virtually no working-class left in San Francisco, were it not for rent control."
Rent control reduces supply and doesn't help newcomers. It is great for current tenants, though.
Imagine you're a woman who's in an abusive relationship, but you share a rent-controlled unit with your abuser. If leaving means your share of rent goes from $800/month to $2,500/month, how likely are you to leave your abusive husband/boyfriend?
Rent control does not help people who have only recently started renting. A rich software engineer who lives in a rent-controlled unit for 30 years is paying less than a student who just moved to the bay for school and has to fork over $2-3k/month for a room. Is that fair? Older, well-established dual income married couples in rent-controlled units who are in the later and highest-earning stage of their career pay far less than the 26 year old transplants who just want enough space for themselves and a kid. Is that fair?
We are all better off when the market rate is lower for everyone. Rent control reduces supply and forces landlords to raise rents in other units, forcing poorer, younger, possibly abused newcomers to subsidize the older, richer, and more well-established residents of an area. That is not a solution to the housing crisis. Just build more fucking units.
Preston: "Even the studies from the economics professors who attack rent control always have to acknowledge, in all those studies, how effective rent control is in stabilizing housing for seniors, disabled folks, and the most vulnerable folks, even as they attack it on theoretical grounds. They still acknowledge that it works to do what it’s supposed to do, which is to stabilize people in their homes."
Rent control is America First, but for local cities. This is the principal flaw of democracy; politicians have no incentive to represent people outside their district. This "America First"-style politicking, more specifically, is politicians putting their constituents' interests before the interests of non-constituents _to the detriment of everyone_. Rent control may be great for the few is benefits, but it makes the problem worse for everyone else.
Don't get me wrong; rent control is a great policy when enacted with some limitations. Rent should not be allowed to be hiked more than 10% per year; but it cannot be enacted without other measures to increase the supply of housing, else you create a two-tiered housing market: one for the rent-controlled, who are stuck in place but get fabulous rents, and one for newcomers who are stuck with the bill for all of your overly-generous rent control.
"""Gentrification""" being used unironically should be the only thing you need to know about how far Robinson's mental model of the housing market is from reality.
Preston: "…is that they’re market fundamentalists. And they believe that simply creating more housing for rich people will ultimately trickle down to people who aren’t rich—maybe in a decade, maybe 50 years."
YIMBYs are not libertarian market fundamentalists. We believe that the principal cause of the housing crisis is that there is a shortage of housing. Simply removing zoning restrictions would not fix the situation for poor people, but that's not what YIMBYs argue. They want a mix of zoning reform, expanded housing vouchers, and yes, public housing.
Let's suppose that we only expand housing vouchers. We have rules forbidding increasing the supply of housing, and a policy that subsidizes demand. What happens to price? It goes up. How many more people do we house? No one, because you can't subsidize your way out of a shortage, and you can't redistribute your way out of a shortage.
Let's suppose that we only build public housing. We still have rules forbidding increasing density. Unless "build public housing" means building public single family home lot sprawl, nothing will get built. _The same zoning restrictions that prevent new private housing also prevent new public housing._
Let's suppose that we only reform zoning. Now it's legal to build more housing, and people will spend money building taller buildings with far more units for more people to live in. Since apartment units are built for far less money per-unit than detached homes, this lowers the price floor that housing can be offered at, allowing housing to become cheaper if we build enough housing to put serious dents in the vacancy rate. We're still leaving out the poor, since housing does take time to filter.
Zoning is not the end-all be-all of policy tools for fixing the housing crisis. YIMBYs agree. But it is the first step, and the single biggest tool in our policy toolbox. Everything starts with supply, and the biggest constraint on supply is zoning. After that, you can clean up the remaining market failures (i.e. homelessness, rent-burdened low-income people) with housing vouchers and much smaller public housing projects than you would need without zoning reform.
Preston: "For all the talk in this city, even a city that’s more progressive on some issues, for all the talk when it comes down to who our economy caters to—not just in housing, but especially in housing—it caters to the wealthy."
Preston literally blocked a 400+ unit housing development _on a valet parking lot_. _He is_ the wealthy person being catered to by the establishment.
Preston: "I thought we could control the rents a bit and have some protections in place. Maybe this can work if we just make developers do a handful of affordable units when they build, and maybe we’ll get there somehow."
Developers don't build out of the kindness of their hearts, they do it for money. If they're forced to subsidize too many "affordable units" with market rate units, the development won't be profitable, so they don't build. If the rent they can collect is capped early, they don't build. Remember, in California, because of Proposition 13, there are enough property owners paying 40-year old property tax valuations that renting is frequently 5-8x cheaper than buying. Literally some properties that rent for $4k/month (@ $600/month property tax) sell at prices of $15k/month mortgage + $3.5k/month property tax. In order for new build rental housing to be competitive with old rental housing, you need to build a shit ton of it to get the per-unit costs down since you're already paying far higher property taxes than landlords who have owned the same property for 30-50 years. San Francisco simply is not zoned for the density of housing that would make a lot more construction financially feasible. Add on rent control and making 30-50% of units "affordable", and you make it even harder for new housing to be built.
Preston: "Well, I think the city and government has to be in the business of actually creating housing for people that is not for profit, right?"
Public housing is good. However, the city and government will be building housing at per-unit prices that would be financially infeasible for private developers and renting them below cost. Even at-cost, these units would be far more expensive than they need to be. You still haven't fixed the underlying cause that you've put so many artificial constraints in front of building housing that you've made it far more expensive than it needs to be. Making the government pay $900k to build a unit and renting it for $800/month and just throwing the entire state budget into doing this _could_ solve the problem, yes, but I think we're better off making new units cost less than $900k to build than we are throwing money that could be better spent on this.
Preston: "I think that’s certainly a factor here. We commissioned a report—and we’re expecting to announce it fairly soon—from the budget, legislative analysts looking at vacancies in San Francisco. And there are a ton of vacancies. A lot of newly constructed places like these luxury condos that sit particularly in the South of Market neighborhood in San Francisco just sit empty, and it’s exactly as you’re describing. You can see at night what’s lit up and what isn’t."
People don't have their lights on at night, therefore their units are empty/vacant? Does he leave all of his indoor lights on when he goes out at night? I certainly don't.
Preston's Board of Supervisors actually passed a vacancy tax on units. It excluded luxury properties (Single family homes) like his. Take that for what you will.
Robinson: "If you have an apartment building with 50 units occupied by working-class tenants, and it’s demolished, and they build something that has 100 units, but it’s 100 people from Palo Alto who come and move in, you have the aggregate number of total units increased—you say we’ve got more housing—but you’ve actually managed to displace more working-class people from the city in the process."
If they're rent-controlled, they can't force the tenants out. If it's not, those working-class tenants were forced out by rent increases or general cost of living costs long ago. More units are better, because the root of the housing crisis is the shortage.
Preston: "Right. It’s always the loopholes around rent control that are used to attack rent control. There’s just such a disconnect between working-class folks and the pundits on rent control, right? You go to all these economics departments, and you can find lots of professors who are going to tell you how rent controls are bad and distort the market. A few of them will give you some support. But generally, you go and talk to people who are living in rent-controlled apartments, or live in San Francisco, where there would be virtually no working-class left in San Francisco, were it not for rent control."
Rent control reduces supply and doesn't help newcomers. It is great for current tenants, though.
Imagine you're a woman who's in an abusive relationship, but you share a rent-controlled unit with your abuser. If leaving means your share of rent goes from $800/month to $2,500/month, how likely are you to leave your abusive husband/boyfriend?
Rent control does not help people who have only recently started renting. A rich software engineer who lives in a rent-controlled unit for 30 years is paying less than a student who just moved to the bay for school and has to fork over $2-3k/month for a room. Is that fair? Older, well-established dual income married couples in rent-controlled units who are in the later and highest-earning stage of their career pay far less than the 26 year old transplants who just want enough space for themselves and a kid. Is that fair?
We are all better off when the market rate is lower for everyone. Rent control reduces supply and forces landlords to raise rents in other units, forcing poorer, younger, possibly abused newcomers to subsidize the older, richer, and more well-established residents of an area. That is not a solution to the housing crisis. Just build more fucking units.
Preston: "Even the studies from the economics professors who attack rent control always have to acknowledge, in all those studies, how effective rent control is in stabilizing housing for seniors, disabled folks, and the most vulnerable folks, even as they attack it on theoretical grounds. They still acknowledge that it works to do what it’s supposed to do, which is to stabilize people in their homes."
Rent control is America First, but for local cities. This is the principal flaw of democracy; politicians have no incentive to represent people outside their district. This "America First"-style politicking, more specifically, is politicians putting their constituents' interests before the interests of non-constituents _to the detriment of everyone_. Rent control may be great for the few is benefits, but it makes the problem worse for everyone else.
Don't get me wrong; rent control is a great policy when enacted with some limitations. Rent should not be allowed to be hiked more than 10% per year; but it cannot be enacted without other measures to increase the supply of housing, else you create a two-tiered housing market: one for the rent-controlled, who are stuck in place but get fabulous rents, and one for newcomers who are stuck with the bill for all of your overly-generous rent control.
I'm realizing now that it would take far too long to refute each and every point in one article, let alone both. I'll just leave you with some tweets and sources that support the YIMBY point of view of the housing crisis and let you peruse them at your own rate:
Current Affairs is run by Nathan Robinson, a "socialist" union-buster who fired every Current Affairs staff member that attempted to unionize. That should tell you what kind of socialist he is; a rich trust fund baby that is more concerned with the aesthetic of being a socialist than the real and actual material conditions that socialism is intended to improve.
Dean Preston is a millionaire homeowner "socialist" who blocked a Nordstrom valet parking lot from becoming 400+ homes (many of which would have been reserved for people with below the area's median income) because "it wasn't affordable enough", AKA not perfect. The status quo of zero new housing supply suits Dean's class interests just fine, as his property will appreciate far faster without it.
Now that I've finished with the ad hominem, onto the articles, tweets, and sources:
Removing zoning restrictions is effective in increasing housing construction: https://twitter.com/mnolangray/status/1559610823353307136?s=...
Building more housing, even market-rate housing, reduces aggregate rents and displacement: https://twitter.com/IDoTheThinking/status/155136150802978406...
Real world example: Auckland, New Zealand: https://twitter.com/UrbFuturistDem/status/154986439702730342...
Vacancies are directly correlated with rent prices.
See New York City: https://twitter.com/NYCComptroller/status/154686782637968589...
Vacancies rose during the pandemic as people left the city. Rent fell. Then people came back, reducing housing vacancies. Rent went back up, climbing to new record highs. Vacancy rates determine the price of rent. Building more housing increases the supply of housing, which increases vacancy rates, which in turn slows rent price growth or reduces rents entirely.
This is not a fringe political ideology, but one tacitly endorsed by President Barack Obama: https://twitter.com/cafedujord/status/1541601275212619777?s=...
Current zoning restrictions weren't set in stone from the founding of cities, but enacted in the 70s to prevent population growth after the Fair Housing Act was passed. It had the intent and effect of keeping out poorer residents, a good-enough proxy for people of color. https://twitter.com/mateosfo/status/1540060815490813952
Los Angeles used to be zoned for 10,000,000. New York City used to be zoned for 55,000,000. We can simply remove this outdated restrictions in every city and allow builders to create the housing we need. Imagine a New York City or Los Angeles where rents were $1,500/month, and far lower in the rest of the country. This is the future that the YIMBY movement is fighting for. All it takes is pre-empting local zoning restrictions, which the states of California, Oregon, and Minnesota have already begun to do. [This is how Tokyo's housing prices have grown no more than 10% since the year 2000](https://twitter.com/aaronAcarr/status/1539606088819085312?s=...): they set zoning laws at the federal level, and build far more housing than we do.
Current Affairs is run by Nathan Robinson, a "socialist" union-buster who fired every Current Affairs staff member that attempted to unionize. That should tell you what kind of socialist he is; a rich trust fund baby that is more concerned with the aesthetic of being a socialist than the real and actual material conditions that socialism is intended to improve.
Dean Preston is a millionaire homeowner "socialist" who blocked a Nordstrom valet parking lot from becoming 400+ homes (many of which would have been reserved for people with below the area's median income) because "it wasn't affordable enough", AKA not perfect. The status quo of zero new housing supply suits Dean's class interests just fine, as his property will appreciate far faster without it.
Now that I've finished with the ad hominem, onto the articles, tweets, and sources:
Removing zoning restrictions is effective in increasing housing construction: https://twitter.com/mnolangray/status/1559610823353307136?s=...
Building more housing, even market-rate housing, reduces aggregate rents and displacement: https://twitter.com/IDoTheThinking/status/155136150802978406...
Real world example: Auckland, New Zealand: https://twitter.com/UrbFuturistDem/status/154986439702730342...
Vacancies are directly correlated with rent prices.
See New York City: https://twitter.com/NYCComptroller/status/154686782637968589...
Vacancies rose during the pandemic as people left the city. Rent fell. Then people came back, reducing housing vacancies. Rent went back up, climbing to new record highs. Vacancy rates determine the price of rent. Building more housing increases the supply of housing, which increases vacancy rates, which in turn slows rent price growth or reduces rents entirely.
This is not a fringe political ideology, but one tacitly endorsed by President Barack Obama: https://twitter.com/cafedujord/status/1541601275212619777?s=...
Current zoning restrictions weren't set in stone from the founding of cities, but enacted in the 70s to prevent population growth after the Fair Housing Act was passed. It had the intent and effect of keeping out poorer residents, a good-enough proxy for people of color. https://twitter.com/mateosfo/status/1540060815490813952
Los Angeles used to be zoned for 10,000,000. New York City used to be zoned for 55,000,000. We can simply remove this outdated restrictions in every city and allow builders to create the housing we need. Imagine a New York City or Los Angeles where rents were $1,500/month, and far lower in the rest of the country. This is the future that the YIMBY movement is fighting for. All it takes is pre-empting local zoning restrictions, which the states of California, Oregon, and Minnesota have already begun to do. [This is how Tokyo's housing prices have grown no more than 10% since the year 2000](https://twitter.com/aaronAcarr/status/1539606088819085312?s=...): they set zoning laws at the federal level, and build far more housing than we do.
I think ZoomerCretin took the effort of going over the two articles in a more thorough fashion. I simply skimmed through, but am roughly familiar with the type of arguments Dean Preston and the prog side of the city would make.
I will try to go over the main type of accusations and refute them as best I can. I previously created a deck for an internal presentation at my company that you can peruse for a broad overview of how I see the whole thing [0]. You can find charts and some sources there backing what follows.
Note that the movement is actually quite diverse and the exact opinions vary, but I will try to summarize in good faith what we stand for.
--- Accusation: A common argument would be that we are "market fundamentalist" and that we believe in "trickle down economics".
This accusation seems to be made so that the audience lumps us with Tea Party conservatives and George W Bush. I find it laughable. Yimby Action members are on average left-of-center. I would probably fall on the right-most side of the spectrum and still would be far from the Tea Parties and GWBs of the world.
In reality, we tend to look at the data and draw conclusions based on economic principles. The truth is that we have been under producing housing for decades now. It's a widespread issue in the West, but it is particularly acute in the Coastal US and other anglophone countries.
We know it is a supply issue because reliably rents are go up as rental vacancies go down and viceversa. Same holds for prices (though I think rents are a better metric, given that housing prices bolt in a layer of speculation). We know that supply is constrained because of ridiculous laws because you can see it in data as the one shown in this article, and because you see alternatives such as Tokyo where building is relatively unhampered, has been growing over the last decades and yet has kept stable housing costs.
--- Accusation: That we are astroturfing for developers and only care about developer's giveaway.
This is just an attempt to create a boogeyman and then connecting everything to it. They chose to make developers the boogeyman instead of landlords, unsurprisingly because most of those making the accusations are landlords themselves.
Every building that has ever existed had a developer (in the general sense) behind it, and profited in one way or another. That's why they built, because it made sense for them. We engage in transactions where one party makes a profit in exchange for generating something valuable for the other party. This is good. We don't want to give away money to developers, we want them to be able to perform their productive function in society.
Landlords are not necessarily bad either. Owning is not necessarily for everyone, so there must be a rental stock. Landlords manage that rental stock and there is value in that.
What is actually bad is having a fixed housing stock that continuously appreciates and extracts increasingly higher rents. We think this is our current situation, and the only way out of it is to make it easy to add more to the housing stock.
--- Accusation: We are against government all intervention in the housing market.
This accusation again is used to try to scare those that are currently hurt the most by the housing situation from joining our side. But it is far, far from truth.
We think that shelter being a basic necessity should be regulated to an extent. We believe there should be a proper system for how and under what conditions a landlord can evict a tenant.
We aren't against government investment in housing, be it via vouchers or by developing public housing. In fact, most of us would readily admit that even in the ideal world you will need some government effort to keep the poorest among us from falling into homelessness.
---
I hope this helps.
[0] https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1O1_oW0Ci2SJEIIhXzuzV...
I will try to go over the main type of accusations and refute them as best I can. I previously created a deck for an internal presentation at my company that you can peruse for a broad overview of how I see the whole thing [0]. You can find charts and some sources there backing what follows.
Note that the movement is actually quite diverse and the exact opinions vary, but I will try to summarize in good faith what we stand for.
--- Accusation: A common argument would be that we are "market fundamentalist" and that we believe in "trickle down economics".
This accusation seems to be made so that the audience lumps us with Tea Party conservatives and George W Bush. I find it laughable. Yimby Action members are on average left-of-center. I would probably fall on the right-most side of the spectrum and still would be far from the Tea Parties and GWBs of the world.
In reality, we tend to look at the data and draw conclusions based on economic principles. The truth is that we have been under producing housing for decades now. It's a widespread issue in the West, but it is particularly acute in the Coastal US and other anglophone countries.
We know it is a supply issue because reliably rents are go up as rental vacancies go down and viceversa. Same holds for prices (though I think rents are a better metric, given that housing prices bolt in a layer of speculation). We know that supply is constrained because of ridiculous laws because you can see it in data as the one shown in this article, and because you see alternatives such as Tokyo where building is relatively unhampered, has been growing over the last decades and yet has kept stable housing costs.
--- Accusation: That we are astroturfing for developers and only care about developer's giveaway.
This is just an attempt to create a boogeyman and then connecting everything to it. They chose to make developers the boogeyman instead of landlords, unsurprisingly because most of those making the accusations are landlords themselves.
Every building that has ever existed had a developer (in the general sense) behind it, and profited in one way or another. That's why they built, because it made sense for them. We engage in transactions where one party makes a profit in exchange for generating something valuable for the other party. This is good. We don't want to give away money to developers, we want them to be able to perform their productive function in society.
Landlords are not necessarily bad either. Owning is not necessarily for everyone, so there must be a rental stock. Landlords manage that rental stock and there is value in that.
What is actually bad is having a fixed housing stock that continuously appreciates and extracts increasingly higher rents. We think this is our current situation, and the only way out of it is to make it easy to add more to the housing stock.
--- Accusation: We are against government all intervention in the housing market.
This accusation again is used to try to scare those that are currently hurt the most by the housing situation from joining our side. But it is far, far from truth.
We think that shelter being a basic necessity should be regulated to an extent. We believe there should be a proper system for how and under what conditions a landlord can evict a tenant.
We aren't against government investment in housing, be it via vouchers or by developing public housing. In fact, most of us would readily admit that even in the ideal world you will need some government effort to keep the poorest among us from falling into homelessness.
---
I hope this helps.
[0] https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1O1_oW0Ci2SJEIIhXzuzV...
> The funds raised go exactly to fight the type of cronyism and insanity that makes SF so ossified and housing impossible to build.
I am a San Francisco resident and living near the Mission laundromat in the article.
I am skeptical your cringe thing will achieve much against problems from this article.
The people on your website have been in power for a few years. They haven't dealt with some problems that take an afternoon to solve, that don't seem to exist everywhere. A poll is cheap, and I'm sure they've conducted some to determine a popular and re-electable course of action.
Clearly the status quo is popular enough to win them office, so why the fuck should I give them money? That will achieve the opposite of what I want. It's completely bonkers dumb.
An intellectually honest approach would find an opposition candidate to run.
The real problem is votes. The right to do whatever the fuck you want with a piece of shit laundromat is, essentially, protecting the minority from a dumbfuck majority.
It's crazy because it's the same energy that mobilizes San Franciscans on many issues, like the minority rights to an abortion, gay marriage, minority religions, etc. For some reason minority rights are organized by how strongly the emotions are felt, instead of like, an objective criteria.
There are issues with strong emotions people can mobilize for. Let me give you a taste of what would motivate me:
> Likewise, the board cited CEQA in denying Tillman’s project in 2018, saying it could cast shadows over a nearby playground.
Alioto Park, which is not obscured by this site but is another playground of many in the Mission, is inhabited by literal heroin addicts, alcoholics and other bottle guys all day. Unusable by children. Dolores Park has people also drinking alcohol and doing drugs. And yet, the playground is eminently usable, clean and well maintained. What gives?
Some people just fucking suck dude. Bottle guys really suck way harder than hipsters. It's so fucking ridiculous that some pieces of shit care about this abstract shadow problem, and in the same breath tolerate their shitty bottle guys in Alioto.
They shit their obese chihuahuas on every street and don't pick up. Listen, some people just don't fucking ever litter. I don't ever litter.
They do a shit job maintaining their million dollar, crumbling homes. Their schools suck. They voted for a repeal of the law that would let them send their kids to better schools, because they're dumb. They pile kids and old relatives into apartments to maximize buyout costs. They pay property taxes stuck in the 80s. They park in the middle of Valencia street for church, and put up a sign that says "Church Parking Only." On a public street dude. They block people's driveways, renters' driveways.
The action I want is, "Everyone deserves a community, not the same community." Identify a politician brave enough to say these people suck, the people who tolerate them suck and should leave or let economic forces drive them out, and I'll come to your cringe thing. Until then, you'll keep shoveling over money to losers, putting pussyhats into dumpsters.
I am a San Francisco resident and living near the Mission laundromat in the article.
I am skeptical your cringe thing will achieve much against problems from this article.
The people on your website have been in power for a few years. They haven't dealt with some problems that take an afternoon to solve, that don't seem to exist everywhere. A poll is cheap, and I'm sure they've conducted some to determine a popular and re-electable course of action.
Clearly the status quo is popular enough to win them office, so why the fuck should I give them money? That will achieve the opposite of what I want. It's completely bonkers dumb.
An intellectually honest approach would find an opposition candidate to run.
The real problem is votes. The right to do whatever the fuck you want with a piece of shit laundromat is, essentially, protecting the minority from a dumbfuck majority.
It's crazy because it's the same energy that mobilizes San Franciscans on many issues, like the minority rights to an abortion, gay marriage, minority religions, etc. For some reason minority rights are organized by how strongly the emotions are felt, instead of like, an objective criteria.
There are issues with strong emotions people can mobilize for. Let me give you a taste of what would motivate me:
> Likewise, the board cited CEQA in denying Tillman’s project in 2018, saying it could cast shadows over a nearby playground.
Alioto Park, which is not obscured by this site but is another playground of many in the Mission, is inhabited by literal heroin addicts, alcoholics and other bottle guys all day. Unusable by children. Dolores Park has people also drinking alcohol and doing drugs. And yet, the playground is eminently usable, clean and well maintained. What gives?
Some people just fucking suck dude. Bottle guys really suck way harder than hipsters. It's so fucking ridiculous that some pieces of shit care about this abstract shadow problem, and in the same breath tolerate their shitty bottle guys in Alioto.
They shit their obese chihuahuas on every street and don't pick up. Listen, some people just don't fucking ever litter. I don't ever litter.
They do a shit job maintaining their million dollar, crumbling homes. Their schools suck. They voted for a repeal of the law that would let them send their kids to better schools, because they're dumb. They pile kids and old relatives into apartments to maximize buyout costs. They pay property taxes stuck in the 80s. They park in the middle of Valencia street for church, and put up a sign that says "Church Parking Only." On a public street dude. They block people's driveways, renters' driveways.
The action I want is, "Everyone deserves a community, not the same community." Identify a politician brave enough to say these people suck, the people who tolerate them suck and should leave or let economic forces drive them out, and I'll come to your cringe thing. Until then, you'll keep shoveling over money to losers, putting pussyhats into dumpsters.
Not a very convincing argument on any level. All you're telling us is that you don't want people living near you, OK, but we already knew that.
FYI: When someone uses the term “YIMBY” all I hear is “LANDLORD” and I don’t think I am alone.
That makes no sense. Landlords tend to be opposed to YIMBY's, because allowing for more housing makes for a more competitive housing market, rather than one in which landowners dominate.
Why would landlords in the market with the highest demand prioritize fending off competition? The answer is they wouldn’t. You’re full of it.
Landlords want to maximize profit from their property and when demand is soaring above supply, adding units is the way to do that so they are organizing to overturn laws that prevent them from doing so.
There is a reason the tickets to this event cost $100+. This isn’t a working class movement lol.
You are either stupid yourself or you’ve got a lot of nerve to act like others are, which is to say you certainly act like a landlord.
Landlords want to maximize profit from their property and when demand is soaring above supply, adding units is the way to do that so they are organizing to overturn laws that prevent them from doing so.
There is a reason the tickets to this event cost $100+. This isn’t a working class movement lol.
You are either stupid yourself or you’ve got a lot of nerve to act like others are, which is to say you certainly act like a landlord.
> Landlords want to maximize profit from their property and when demand is soaring above supply, adding units is the way to do that
You're saying that as supply catches up to the soaring demand, profits will go up instead of down?
There's a lot of name-calling in your post and not a lot of sense.
You're saying that as supply catches up to the soaring demand, profits will go up instead of down?
There's a lot of name-calling in your post and not a lot of sense.
> You're saying that as supply catches up to the soaring demand, profits will go up instead of down?
I don't think you're wrong on the larger point that landlords are more likely to be on the side of NIMBYism / NIMBYs are going to be land owners.
But, to an extent this is possible; the price would drop for the additional supply, but the total of (now_higher_supply * now_lower_price) can still be greater than (original_lower_supply * original_higher_price). Depends on how the market demand responds to the additional supply, and how much additional supply there is. (It can happen the other way, too, where the drop in price outweighs the new profit from the new supply, and total profit drops.)
… so it kinda requires an idea of how the additional supply would cause the price to change, beyond what I suspect most landlords have. And a foresight/long-termism that I also don't think exists. And if you're a small time landlord not planning on building additional properties, then your supply is always 1, and if the price does down, obviously then too the product does. And I think in SF, the additional supply that is needed, from a more moral standpoint of "people need to live, commuting is bad for the environment and people's health", is crap tons of additional housing. The price to rent could halve and still be too high.
I don't think you're wrong on the larger point that landlords are more likely to be on the side of NIMBYism / NIMBYs are going to be land owners.
But, to an extent this is possible; the price would drop for the additional supply, but the total of (now_higher_supply * now_lower_price) can still be greater than (original_lower_supply * original_higher_price). Depends on how the market demand responds to the additional supply, and how much additional supply there is. (It can happen the other way, too, where the drop in price outweighs the new profit from the new supply, and total profit drops.)
… so it kinda requires an idea of how the additional supply would cause the price to change, beyond what I suspect most landlords have. And a foresight/long-termism that I also don't think exists. And if you're a small time landlord not planning on building additional properties, then your supply is always 1, and if the price does down, obviously then too the product does. And I think in SF, the additional supply that is needed, from a more moral standpoint of "people need to live, commuting is bad for the environment and people's health", is crap tons of additional housing. The price to rent could halve and still be too high.
Right. It doesn’t matter if landlords collectively profit because their behaviors are guided by their individual interests, not all the landlords of SF as one.
In other words, different landlords with different plans, assets, and resources will act differently. Even if the collective landlords of SF did somehow lose profit from NIMBYism’s rise, some of them will stand to gain a lot and I’d bet on landlords at this NIMBY Prom event standing to gain a lot.
In other words, different landlords with different plans, assets, and resources will act differently. Even if the collective landlords of SF did somehow lose profit from NIMBYism’s rise, some of them will stand to gain a lot and I’d bet on landlords at this NIMBY Prom event standing to gain a lot.
NIMBY in the streets and YIMBY in the sheets I guess.
If I owned a block of single family houses in Frisco I’d want to be able to turn my block to a giant apartment complex at the same time I’d want to prevent anyone else doing a similar thing.
Then my profit goes up and isn’t endangered.
If I owned a block of single family houses in Frisco I’d want to be able to turn my block to a giant apartment complex at the same time I’d want to prevent anyone else doing a similar thing.
Then my profit goes up and isn’t endangered.
Precisely.
I think you're in a relatively small demographic that has even heard of YIMBY, and mainly heard of it through a small contingent of leftist critiques (and also has a negative view of landlords).
Even in SF, that's not really the group whose mind the movement is intending to change. That's the group whose dominant historical grip on the left they're determined to dislodge, because of its harmful effect on San Francisco's progressive program.
Even in SF, that's not really the group whose mind the movement is intending to change. That's the group whose dominant historical grip on the left they're determined to dislodge, because of its harmful effect on San Francisco's progressive program.
So who are these people? The politicians are absolutely landlord-adjacent (i.e. NIMBY adjacent) if not landlords themselves, but who are the others? Just some desperate wage earners eager to dispose of their latest $100+ of income on this cheesy fundraiser? Give me a break!
I'm a bit confused by you using NIMBY and YIMBY interchangeably here, but most of the YIMBY activists I know come from people who got into housing policy because they couldn't afford to live in SF. They're all renters, and most come from a lefty political background.
Fundraising events are pretty common in this kind of environment: if it was landlord driven, i'd imagine the tickets would be more in the thousands, as that's common for traditional for party political fundraisers in US cities, where you are paying for access. I'd compare it to, say, the Harvey Milk Club Gayla, whose prices you can see here: https://www.milkclub.org/gayla
Fundraising events are pretty common in this kind of environment: if it was landlord driven, i'd imagine the tickets would be more in the thousands, as that's common for traditional for party political fundraisers in US cities, where you are paying for access. I'd compare it to, say, the Harvey Milk Club Gayla, whose prices you can see here: https://www.milkclub.org/gayla
Why would landlords want to drive down the price of housing?
Landlords care about profit, not price.
If supply isn't increased but demand is increased, the price goes up. San Francisco is a popular city with a strong job market (demand) and won't build housing, so the price goes up.
What part of that is hard for people to understand?
What part of that is hard for people to understand?
The part that's hard for people to understand is not the basic supply and demand issue, but rather why well-intentioned, good-sounding policies like environmental review processes, rent control, or mandatory affordable housing quotas don't accomplish what they say they would; to understand the latter requires an understanding of the higher-order repercussions of those policies.
I spent a solid week in the planning office trying to get a permit to build a deck on my property.
After visiting five desks, redrawing plans every night to fix their absurd nits at the final window the lady pushed the plans back across the desk. “I just don’t like the professionalism of these drawing.” Drawings were made by a contractor with 20 years experience.
You know why housing doesn’t get built in San Francisco? That office. 100% of the problem.
You know why housing doesn’t get built in San Francisco? That office. 100% of the problem.
This is why in Los Angeles I've noticed there's so much un-permitted work done without anyone batting an eye. That's also why you have so many un-permitted ADUs in this city complete with plumbing and electrical.
Fence higher than 6 feet? That's technically against the law and you need a special permit, but no one cares and contractors will build without one. We're talking about LA, where concrete walls over 10 feet around homes are common.
Pouring more than 30 square feet of concrete, or replacing a driveway? You need a permit. But guess what, yup, contractors will do that without batting an eye.
Replacing a sink or toilet? Yup, you need a permit. Installing a built-in book shelf that technically takes away square footage? You need a permit. New windows? Permit! New showerhead, that's a permit too – yes, actually. And all of these have fees (some of which are more than the cost of the change), inspections, and will be factored into the tax assessment.
These are requirements for both single family homes and multi-family developments. While LA has no shortage of laws on the books, I'm thankful that at least compared to San Francisco contractors have no hesitation cutting right through it. It might have to do with the fact that unlike SF, LA has the space to keep things out of site from overly-nosy neighbors.
Fence higher than 6 feet? That's technically against the law and you need a special permit, but no one cares and contractors will build without one. We're talking about LA, where concrete walls over 10 feet around homes are common.
Pouring more than 30 square feet of concrete, or replacing a driveway? You need a permit. But guess what, yup, contractors will do that without batting an eye.
Replacing a sink or toilet? Yup, you need a permit. Installing a built-in book shelf that technically takes away square footage? You need a permit. New windows? Permit! New showerhead, that's a permit too – yes, actually. And all of these have fees (some of which are more than the cost of the change), inspections, and will be factored into the tax assessment.
These are requirements for both single family homes and multi-family developments. While LA has no shortage of laws on the books, I'm thankful that at least compared to San Francisco contractors have no hesitation cutting right through it. It might have to do with the fact that unlike SF, LA has the space to keep things out of site from overly-nosy neighbors.
I live in a small town in Ontario just outside Toronto and this problem is GLOBAL.
I did a walkout basement years ago, the f'ing building inspector came to my house every single day. It got to the point he was stopping by for lunch simply to abuse my wife's hospitality.
we had enough and finally asked him what he wants. He basically told us to call the city and tell them what a great job he was doing.
We did this just to get rid of him.
I dont think the government has any clue what the lower level people are actually doing. It isnt about "building permits" but government empire building and control.
I did a walkout basement years ago, the f'ing building inspector came to my house every single day. It got to the point he was stopping by for lunch simply to abuse my wife's hospitality.
we had enough and finally asked him what he wants. He basically told us to call the city and tell them what a great job he was doing.
We did this just to get rid of him.
I dont think the government has any clue what the lower level people are actually doing. It isnt about "building permits" but government empire building and control.
This is a good overview of the dysfunction of the DBI - https://missionlocal.org/2021/02/san-francisco-department-of...
In some countries, this might be corruption, directing business to "preferred" vendors, or it by straight up bribe seeking actions.
In SF and around the bay, it seems to be straight up we don't want to build in our city, so go away.
In SF and around the bay, it seems to be straight up we don't want to build in our city, so go away.
Even in SF that was straight up solicitation for a bribe.
Imagine a candidate saying he/she was going to fire 90% of the planning office and end environment and community impact studies.
Do you think that candidate will succeed with SF’s voters?
Do you think that candidate will succeed with SF’s voters?
What does that even mean? Were the plans too professional or not professional enough?
She was likely expecting a bribe.
https://missionlocal.org/2020/03/department-of-building-insp...
Ironically some people complained about Hui from the perspective of opposing development (signing off on things he shouldn’t have). But it’s two sides of the same coin - making housing so hard to build is what creates the market for “expediters” and the opportunity for corruption in the housing bureaucracy
Ironically some people complained about Hui from the perspective of opposing development (signing off on things he shouldn’t have). But it’s two sides of the same coin - making housing so hard to build is what creates the market for “expediters” and the opportunity for corruption in the housing bureaucracy
Sounds like their job is to not let you do anything. Smells like corruption, unless no one is allowed to build anything which I doubt but could be wrong about
The fact that they use paper and not digital drawings is part of how they keep the corruption going.
you obviously should have hired the services of a "permit expediter" which is totally not a legal form of bribery
I think mobsters used to kill people like this.
There was a (government) public investigation / shame campaign a few years ago ago the construction industry in Montreal, Canada.
One of the person who testified in exchange for not being jailed was "Mr. 3%", a member of the office who approve (public) construction projects. He took 3% of the project total cost (in bribes) from the top 30 contractors in exchange for making sure their permits requests never got in these artificial rejection loops.
The bureaucracy, just like the old taxi industry, is about keeping smaller players out, not enforcing the codes.
One of the person who testified in exchange for not being jailed was "Mr. 3%", a member of the office who approve (public) construction projects. He took 3% of the project total cost (in bribes) from the top 30 contractors in exchange for making sure their permits requests never got in these artificial rejection loops.
The bureaucracy, just like the old taxi industry, is about keeping smaller players out, not enforcing the codes.
> The bureaucracy, just like the old taxi industry, is about keeping smaller players out, not enforcing the codes.
See my post above.. it is also about feeding the bureaucracy itself as well.
Some places (like where i live) actually go driving around looking for construction taking place so they can issue "stop work" orders and force you to get permits.
they use these permits to ask for more federal/provincial money as they are 'growing'.
They also grow the bureaucracy machine, which allows them to hire more people to drive around looking for lumber on your yard, to make you buy more permits...
See my post above.. it is also about feeding the bureaucracy itself as well.
Some places (like where i live) actually go driving around looking for construction taking place so they can issue "stop work" orders and force you to get permits.
they use these permits to ask for more federal/provincial money as they are 'growing'.
They also grow the bureaucracy machine, which allows them to hire more people to drive around looking for lumber on your yard, to make you buy more permits...
Honestly paying 3% to make sure your shit gets approved sounds great. It's kind of like dealing with a hooker instead of a wife -- at least you know exactly what it's going to cost after you leave.
More corruption at this point would almost be a good thing. As things stand there's basically no personal incentive for inspectors to actually approve projects.
More corruption at this point would almost be a good thing. As things stand there's basically no personal incentive for inspectors to actually approve projects.
It was 3% as long as you were part of the conspirator and make it extra painful to everybody else. What the conspirators wanted out of this was to control the number of players so they could limit supply and control rates. Paying people to do nothing while you wait for the permits is how you bankrupt small contractors.
In some cities, these departments are the legacies of the mob.
I know people want to preserve the "San Francisco-iness" of SF, but the irony of refusing to upzone is that it makes the entire city feel more inhumane and artificial.
We don't do a good enough job on messaging that upzoning will actually do more to preserve your neighborhood than outright bans. If you actually upzone urban core areas, there will be less traffic and pressure on outlying areas.
We don't do a good enough job on messaging that upzoning will actually do more to preserve your neighborhood than outright bans. If you actually upzone urban core areas, there will be less traffic and pressure on outlying areas.
High valuations are also self fulfilling.
Even if zoning is changed now, the price of the land will be very high on the basis of high residential property prices, which leads to higher breakeven price for sale (or rents) of newly constructed properties.
It's too late to go back and fill in all those lots at 2000-2010 level prices. Still worth upzoning and fostering new development, but important to recognize bad policy can be compounding
Even if zoning is changed now, the price of the land will be very high on the basis of high residential property prices, which leads to higher breakeven price for sale (or rents) of newly constructed properties.
It's too late to go back and fill in all those lots at 2000-2010 level prices. Still worth upzoning and fostering new development, but important to recognize bad policy can be compounding
Hmm... so like a "lost decade" for a city.
San Francisco makes it hard to do any type of construction. Check JWZ's adventures in getting work done on the DNA lounge, it's crazy to read.
Link for the curious
https://www.dnalounge.com/backstage/log/
I googled "JWZ's adventures" and didn't find anything relevant.
The start is here: https://www.dnalounge.com/backstage/log/2000/03/
Do you have a link to one of his blog posts about this?
FYI, jwz hates HN for whatever reason and redirects HN referers to shock sites
I hadn’t been following their plumbing saga but seems pretty rough. EDIT: I had pasted a link but it seems that the author redirects HN traffic to something other than the intended content. The one I linked was the most recent post on DNA Lounge’s blog when I wrote this comment.
Just a heads up, but jwz redirects links from hackernews to a page that isn't exactly safe for work.
Ha! Learn something new every day.
I'd have to look, but it was during some contstruction they were doing in the pizza restaurant I believe. I don't want to post the link here as he has a redirect which ridicules HN users.... (edited for spelling)
Everybody wants to build housing, but no bureaucrat wants to give up control to saying “yes” or “no” to projects.
We need some radical anti-bureaucracy candidates, but there’s not good overlap with the local ideological demographic.
Stalemate.
We need some radical anti-bureaucracy candidates, but there’s not good overlap with the local ideological demographic.
Stalemate.
SF Yimby (Yimby Action chapter) [0] and GrowSF [1] are two orgs that constantly push for removing bureaucrats's discretionary power to say "yes" or "no" to projects. Yimby Action is having its main fundraising event [2] this October, if you want to meet other like minded people and push for a change (if you do, write huevosabio as your referral, I'll be there :)).
[0] https://www.sfyimby.org/endorsements [1] https://growsf.org/voter-guide [2] https://yimbyaction.org/2021/events/yimby-prom-gala-bay-area...
[0] https://www.sfyimby.org/endorsements [1] https://growsf.org/voter-guide [2] https://yimbyaction.org/2021/events/yimby-prom-gala-bay-area...
> Everybody wants to build housing
This is completely false. A large portion of Bay Area home-owner voters are staunch NIMBY supporters.
Even the majority of my renter friends are against development. According to them, it just makes developers rich and does nothing for rents.
The amount of voters that are against development is definitely the majority.
This is completely false. A large portion of Bay Area home-owner voters are staunch NIMBY supporters.
Even the majority of my renter friends are against development. According to them, it just makes developers rich and does nothing for rents.
The amount of voters that are against development is definitely the majority.
> This is completely false. A large portion of Bay Area home-owner voters are staunch NIMBY supporters.
True, but it's also true that even NIMBY's are nominally for more housing somewhere. Just not, y'know, wherever they live, hence the name.
True, but it's also true that even NIMBY's are nominally for more housing somewhere. Just not, y'know, wherever they live, hence the name.
They might be better described as BANANAs --- Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.
You see a few ideas repeated over and over in those circles. "We don't have a housing crisis, we have an affordable housing crisis." And "We have plenty of housing, but large corporations have bought it and are keeping it vacant." They do genuinely believe that enough housing already exists, but that it just sitting empty and not going to the people that need it.
You see a few ideas repeated over and over in those circles. "We don't have a housing crisis, we have an affordable housing crisis." And "We have plenty of housing, but large corporations have bought it and are keeping it vacant." They do genuinely believe that enough housing already exists, but that it just sitting empty and not going to the people that need it.
> According to them, it just makes developers rich and does nothing for rents.
How do people think these kinds of thoughts?
"Food is too expensive! We have to shut down these evil farmers! Farming just makes them rich!"
I mean this is on the same level of ideologically induced willful stupidity as "a woman can't get pregnant from rape."
How do people think these kinds of thoughts?
"Food is too expensive! We have to shut down these evil farmers! Farming just makes them rich!"
I mean this is on the same level of ideologically induced willful stupidity as "a woman can't get pregnant from rape."
Having deal with the same crowd in Vancouver, their think process is-
Build more -> Only luxury apartments will be built -> luxury apartment builders will make money -> morally wrong
Nothing else matters.
Tidbits- One of the city councilors for Vancouver is known to be a staunch NO voter- any development that is not 100% below market will get a NO from her. Her argument is that existing 50 year old apartments are being torn down and will displace the residents.
So someone found a news article from 50 years ago, showing the same activist, decrying that the buildings are being constructed and displaced the existing tenants from existing buildings.
But somehow 50 years later she is defending the same type of buildings she was fighting against 50 years ago, using the exact same argument.
You can't reason with people like them.
Build more -> Only luxury apartments will be built -> luxury apartment builders will make money -> morally wrong
Nothing else matters.
Tidbits- One of the city councilors for Vancouver is known to be a staunch NO voter- any development that is not 100% below market will get a NO from her. Her argument is that existing 50 year old apartments are being torn down and will displace the residents.
So someone found a news article from 50 years ago, showing the same activist, decrying that the buildings are being constructed and displaced the existing tenants from existing buildings.
But somehow 50 years later she is defending the same type of buildings she was fighting against 50 years ago, using the exact same argument.
You can't reason with people like them.
And unfortunately these types of unpleasant folks are also invading HN…
It comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of economics, especially the role of profit.
Near as I can tell, it's due to radical ideological splits among the different power bases, and little in the way of shared culture/values. Some prominent ones being the Latinos, Chinese, Japanese, Tech, Finance, etc. blocs. The stakes are high enough and the blocs are big enough, it's easy to drive divisions between them and play them against each other.
It lets someone who wants to point fingers at another group and fearmonger enough folks to block anything they don't want - and among the different blocs, there is no specific thing they all agree on.
One classic recent example of this is Zoning for Marijuana dispensaries. For a long time post legalization, there literally were only 2 potential locations in SF you could get permitted to open one due to extreme school location distance requirements, driven partially by the Chinese bloc. [https://www.sfexaminer.com/the_fs/forum/conservative-chinese...]
Even now, there are only ~42. [https://sfstandard.com/arts-culture/cannabis-lounge-map-mari...]
That is a ludicrously low number for a city of San Francisco's size, even if you don't know the history of San Francisco as one of the counter culture/weed cultures epicenters.
Of course, during this entire time it was still easy to find weed - just not legally. There is a huge underground market that never stopped. And regardless of legality, there were no meaningful penalties except from the Feds (who have gotten a cold shoulder from SF for a VERY long time), as the local Police stopped enforcing anti-Marijuana rules consistently sometime in the 70s.
California overall (and the US) is becoming more and more like San Francisco. It's like a cancer, as lack of belief in social institutions or a coherent social identity trends towards 'snitches get stitches' and 'fuck you, I got mine', which just enables predators.
It lets someone who wants to point fingers at another group and fearmonger enough folks to block anything they don't want - and among the different blocs, there is no specific thing they all agree on.
One classic recent example of this is Zoning for Marijuana dispensaries. For a long time post legalization, there literally were only 2 potential locations in SF you could get permitted to open one due to extreme school location distance requirements, driven partially by the Chinese bloc. [https://www.sfexaminer.com/the_fs/forum/conservative-chinese...]
Even now, there are only ~42. [https://sfstandard.com/arts-culture/cannabis-lounge-map-mari...]
That is a ludicrously low number for a city of San Francisco's size, even if you don't know the history of San Francisco as one of the counter culture/weed cultures epicenters.
Of course, during this entire time it was still easy to find weed - just not legally. There is a huge underground market that never stopped. And regardless of legality, there were no meaningful penalties except from the Feds (who have gotten a cold shoulder from SF for a VERY long time), as the local Police stopped enforcing anti-Marijuana rules consistently sometime in the 70s.
California overall (and the US) is becoming more and more like San Francisco. It's like a cancer, as lack of belief in social institutions or a coherent social identity trends towards 'snitches get stitches' and 'fuck you, I got mine', which just enables predators.
The only way we'll fix this is by replacing the ideologues on the Board of Supervisors with forward-thinking leaders who want to grow the city, make it easier for businesses to open and operate. That's why we started GrowSF - we can fix San Francisco, but we have to act as a real voting bloc. Check us out at growsf.org
A recent Peter Thiel video[1] has a great comment on this subject. If building 1% extra houses drops the cost of all remaining houses by 2%, would the city be really interested in increasing the supply? Especially if property is seen as investment first, place to live second.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=balGGAd6ZrI
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=balGGAd6ZrI
Where has development dropped prices like that?
The densest places in the US have some of the most expensive land and property values. Even if it's old and crumbling.
People do development to increase the value of land. It's practically in the name.
The core opposition to development is all about "character of the neighborhood" and resistance to change. The value of land in SF is more likely to go down if they drive too many people out, than if it becomes even denser and bustling.
The densest places in the US have some of the most expensive land and property values. Even if it's old and crumbling.
People do development to increase the value of land. It's practically in the name.
The core opposition to development is all about "character of the neighborhood" and resistance to change. The value of land in SF is more likely to go down if they drive too many people out, than if it becomes even denser and bustling.
>If building 1% extra houses drops the cost of all remaining houses by 2%, would the city be really interested in increasing the supply?
Do you have a timestamp? Surely Thiel isn't advocating for nationalizing housing, but the talk seems to devolve into wokeism? I imagine he's playing the crowd, but I can't get a read on what his actual solutions are.
Do you have a timestamp? Surely Thiel isn't advocating for nationalizing housing, but the talk seems to devolve into wokeism? I imagine he's playing the crowd, but I can't get a read on what his actual solutions are.
> property is seen as investment first, place to live second
I disagree with this, I think NIMBY attitudes is mainly about keeping the quality of live, they want to keep current housing and avoid apartments, more crowds etc. Development and more people increases the value of existing property.
I disagree with this, I think NIMBY attitudes is mainly about keeping the quality of live, they want to keep current housing and avoid apartments, more crowds etc. Development and more people increases the value of existing property.
I saw an interesting video from Kirsten Dirksen this past week taking a look at a company trying to tackle this with the drop-in ADU approach. That was the first I had heard about the rule changes in California about unblockable building additions to try and tackle the housing issues. Presented without particular knowledge or endorsement of what the company is saying (they obviously have a vested interest in their solution to the housing crisis).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnIJwj17hgo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnIJwj17hgo
I don't know about SFO. I can say from painful personal experience that, if it is worse than LA County --which is a nightmare-- I cannot imagine building anything in SFO.
In one of my projects the plan-checker got into a fight with the civil engineering firm I hired over the method used to calculate static and wind loads on a structure. I had done all of this work myself --including running FEA simulations. However, because I am not a Civil Engineer, I had to hire a firm to, effectively, duplicate my work. Physics is physics, right? That's OK. No problem.
The issue was that the plan-checker did not like the method the civil engineering firm used to do the math. He called it the "European" method. This was a US civil engineering firm bonded for operation on all 50 states, BTW.
What was absolutely perplexing to witness and endure was that the numbers were correct. My numbers, the civil engineering company's numbers and the non-European method (whatever that means) numbers were the same (within the margin of error).
The plan checker (a Civil Engineer) knew this. The results were the same. He just wanted it done his way. That cost me weeks and thousands of dollars.
The problem with these people is that they have an incredible amount of power. One cannot challenge this power without being willing to delay a project for months or years and incur thousand, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) in costs. It is as close as one can get to dealing with a totalitarian regime within a free society.
The same permit office forced me to install 64000 lbs. of concrete as the footings for my ground-mounted 13 kW solar array. An architect friend of mine told me those footings can support a four-story building. There was no way to have that decision reversed. I tried. It cost me a couple of months and tens of thousands of dollars.
Building safety and zoning regulations are most-definitely important. However, there needs to be a mechanism in place to ensure there's fairness in the system all-around. I don't want unsafe buildings anywhere around me. I also want construction projects to be able to execute on reasonable timelines and at the lowest possible cost; one that is not inflated by bureaucracy and, yes, incompetence.
In one of my projects the plan-checker got into a fight with the civil engineering firm I hired over the method used to calculate static and wind loads on a structure. I had done all of this work myself --including running FEA simulations. However, because I am not a Civil Engineer, I had to hire a firm to, effectively, duplicate my work. Physics is physics, right? That's OK. No problem.
The issue was that the plan-checker did not like the method the civil engineering firm used to do the math. He called it the "European" method. This was a US civil engineering firm bonded for operation on all 50 states, BTW.
What was absolutely perplexing to witness and endure was that the numbers were correct. My numbers, the civil engineering company's numbers and the non-European method (whatever that means) numbers were the same (within the margin of error).
The plan checker (a Civil Engineer) knew this. The results were the same. He just wanted it done his way. That cost me weeks and thousands of dollars.
The problem with these people is that they have an incredible amount of power. One cannot challenge this power without being willing to delay a project for months or years and incur thousand, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) in costs. It is as close as one can get to dealing with a totalitarian regime within a free society.
The same permit office forced me to install 64000 lbs. of concrete as the footings for my ground-mounted 13 kW solar array. An architect friend of mine told me those footings can support a four-story building. There was no way to have that decision reversed. I tried. It cost me a couple of months and tens of thousands of dollars.
Building safety and zoning regulations are most-definitely important. However, there needs to be a mechanism in place to ensure there's fairness in the system all-around. I don't want unsafe buildings anywhere around me. I also want construction projects to be able to execute on reasonable timelines and at the lowest possible cost; one that is not inflated by bureaucracy and, yes, incompetence.
> I also want construction projects to be able to execute on reasonable timelines and at the lowest possible cost; one that is not inflated by bureaucracy and, yes, incompetence.
As a resident of San Francisco I complete sympathize and mostly agree with your position.
That said I don't think you can comprehend how broke and cheap the landlords are here in San Francisco. 50+ year old buildings that are all crumbling. They pay absolute nincompoops to keep everything standing and not more. Literal illiterates.
The maximum action I've seen taken against these people is like, a $900 permit fine. Maybe once out of every 100 unpermitted repairs / modifications / works.
> bureaucracy... He just wanted it done his way.
The majorities in LA and SF communities where development is economical are not aligned culturally with you and me.
I don't totally understand why "they" are excused from following the rules. I don't know why Prop 13 ensures they pay 1/20th the property taxes you do and I eventually will (I am a renter).
I can't comprehend why we tolerate how people in these communities use old people and children to maximize their compulsory buyout payments when someone else moves into the home a person with whom they share a cultural affinity is selling.
Somehow these same people have fucked up the compact that people in the Mission could send their kids to Presidio schools. A 10 year law that would have made it reasonable for me to permanently live here, now reversed.
They're just so god damned stupid. Eventually people will crack and figure out whom to point the finger at.
As a resident of San Francisco I complete sympathize and mostly agree with your position.
That said I don't think you can comprehend how broke and cheap the landlords are here in San Francisco. 50+ year old buildings that are all crumbling. They pay absolute nincompoops to keep everything standing and not more. Literal illiterates.
The maximum action I've seen taken against these people is like, a $900 permit fine. Maybe once out of every 100 unpermitted repairs / modifications / works.
> bureaucracy... He just wanted it done his way.
The majorities in LA and SF communities where development is economical are not aligned culturally with you and me.
I don't totally understand why "they" are excused from following the rules. I don't know why Prop 13 ensures they pay 1/20th the property taxes you do and I eventually will (I am a renter).
I can't comprehend why we tolerate how people in these communities use old people and children to maximize their compulsory buyout payments when someone else moves into the home a person with whom they share a cultural affinity is selling.
Somehow these same people have fucked up the compact that people in the Mission could send their kids to Presidio schools. A 10 year law that would have made it reasonable for me to permanently live here, now reversed.
They're just so god damned stupid. Eventually people will crack and figure out whom to point the finger at.
The crumbling buildings with horrid management are all classic symptoms of the effect of price controls, exacerbated by other anti-development factors in SF. Put it this way: when demand far outstrips supply due to the supply being effectively made illegal, prices rise. When said prices are forced down by rent control, quality deteriorates as landlords must make up the difference somewhere.
"I had done all of this work myself"
And yet you're blaming LA County for this. Civil engineering work is required to be done by engineers. There are rules and procedures that must be followed. That's the law pretty much everywhere you have nearby neighbors; if you don't like those laws go out to the boonies and you can build whatever you want, however you want. But if you're going to try to build something that might affect other people you need to follow the rules.
An architect friend of mine told me those footings can support a four-story building.
Your architect friend would be wrong on that...For point of comparison, the average concrete foundation is 200 lb/square foot, or about 480,000 for a 1-story 2,400 square foot house (see https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=20041219&slug... estimating the foundation for the garage of a single-level home at approximately 30,000 lb). That's why engineers are required to review the work. Because self-styled architects are constantly messing up on the math and physics.
EDIT: numbers and math come from the linked article.
And yet you're blaming LA County for this. Civil engineering work is required to be done by engineers. There are rules and procedures that must be followed. That's the law pretty much everywhere you have nearby neighbors; if you don't like those laws go out to the boonies and you can build whatever you want, however you want. But if you're going to try to build something that might affect other people you need to follow the rules.
An architect friend of mine told me those footings can support a four-story building.
Your architect friend would be wrong on that...For point of comparison, the average concrete foundation is 200 lb/square foot, or about 480,000 for a 1-story 2,400 square foot house (see https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=20041219&slug... estimating the foundation for the garage of a single-level home at approximately 30,000 lb). That's why engineers are required to review the work. Because self-styled architects are constantly messing up on the math and physics.
EDIT: numbers and math come from the linked article.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about with “the average concrete foundation is 200 lb/square foot” but I assume you’re talking about allowable bearing pressures. First there’s two things to note: (1) a 2400 sf house is living space, its foundation’s bearing area has little relation to this number, especially if it’s not slab on grade and (2) the actual loads going into the foundation are not calculated in a way even remotely close to what your post implies. Regarding allowable bearing pressure, the allowable bearing pressure specified in the building code for the most likely soil condition can be found in CBC 1806 and it is 3000 lb/square foot for sandy gravel (assuming good fill was placed for the original house and the solar addition sits on similar structural fill). Your Seattle garage would be supportable by a 3 ft by 3 ft foundation (call it 4x4 after foundation weight is added). A 480kip house could be supported by a 12 ft by 12 ft slab. Even taking the lowest presumptive value (1500 psf for clays, which is incredibly unlikely to be the bearing strata for a modern or even recent home) would only double these areas (8x8 and 24x24). 64000 lbs of reinforced concrete is almost 450 cubic feet (17 yards!). This is 2 entire concrete trucks’ worth of concrete, which is absurd for a residential foundation. Assuming a 2 ft thick slab this is 225 square feet of bearing area. This is enough to support your ENTIRE hypothetical home, not just to support a solar array. More likely the slab is under 18 inches thick, or maybe even 12. So it’s entirely believable that a 4 story building with 2400 sf of living space (or 3600 or 4800 sf) exists and is supportable by 17 yards of concrete.
The architect is right, you are wrong. There is simply no reason to have this much concrete for a residential solar addition.
For your information and to head off argument: I am a licensed civil engineer in California. The rules and procedures for little shit like a solar array foundation can be followed by almost anyone who can do simple arithmetic by using the CBC, you do not need a license to do it correctly. You need the licensed engineer’s stamp so that there is someone (insurance) to sue if things go wrong.
The architect is right, you are wrong. There is simply no reason to have this much concrete for a residential solar addition.
For your information and to head off argument: I am a licensed civil engineer in California. The rules and procedures for little shit like a solar array foundation can be followed by almost anyone who can do simple arithmetic by using the CBC, you do not need a license to do it correctly. You need the licensed engineer’s stamp so that there is someone (insurance) to sue if things go wrong.
> I am a licensed civil engineer in California. The rules and procedures for little shit like a solar array foundation can be followed by almost anyone who can do simple arithmetic by using the CBC, you do not need a license to do it correctly. You need the licensed engineer’s stamp so that there is someone (insurance) to sue if things go wrong.
Thanks for posting this (and the rest of your analysis). I'll repeat what my wife says all the time to her patients: "Your Google search is not equivalent to my medical degree".
This kind of thing comes-up all the time online. People think they understand something and don't seem to bother to make sure they actually do.
I am not a Civil Engineer. I am an EE, with enough of a physics background and multidisciplinary experience to work my way through a project like this without any issues. I have done a lot of construction work. I did all of the design work because (a) I enjoy this and (b) I could save some money this way. I knew full well that a licensed Civil Engineer would have to come into the fold eventually.
The more work I did in order to ensure all was structurally sound, to code, etc., the less design iterations we would require while paying a Civil Engineer. As it turned out, I got most of it right. We had to make some adjustments based on the wind loading the county wanted (my house would be shredded at those speed, but my solar structure will stay put).
Here are a few renderings from Solidworks:
https://i.imgur.com/xhbpxBe.png
https://i.imgur.com/gO91PaO.png
https://i.imgur.com/JUao20F.png
The civil engineering firm was able to use the ACAD drawings I produced from Solidworks, that saved me a bunch of money.
As a point of interest, I installed fans under each section to help cool the panels and improve output. I don't have data on how well this works yet (it's been four years, I should have it!).
It was quite an experience to start with a pile of lumber on the driveway to personally cutting and milling every single component and then assembling the thing. The best part, my kids learned a ton in the process.
Thanks for posting this (and the rest of your analysis). I'll repeat what my wife says all the time to her patients: "Your Google search is not equivalent to my medical degree".
This kind of thing comes-up all the time online. People think they understand something and don't seem to bother to make sure they actually do.
I am not a Civil Engineer. I am an EE, with enough of a physics background and multidisciplinary experience to work my way through a project like this without any issues. I have done a lot of construction work. I did all of the design work because (a) I enjoy this and (b) I could save some money this way. I knew full well that a licensed Civil Engineer would have to come into the fold eventually.
The more work I did in order to ensure all was structurally sound, to code, etc., the less design iterations we would require while paying a Civil Engineer. As it turned out, I got most of it right. We had to make some adjustments based on the wind loading the county wanted (my house would be shredded at those speed, but my solar structure will stay put).
Here are a few renderings from Solidworks:
https://i.imgur.com/xhbpxBe.png
https://i.imgur.com/gO91PaO.png
https://i.imgur.com/JUao20F.png
The civil engineering firm was able to use the ACAD drawings I produced from Solidworks, that saved me a bunch of money.
As a point of interest, I installed fans under each section to help cool the panels and improve output. I don't have data on how well this works yet (it's been four years, I should have it!).
It was quite an experience to start with a pile of lumber on the driveway to personally cutting and milling every single component and then assembling the thing. The best part, my kids learned a ton in the process.
No problem. People think that structural engineering is some kind of mystic art because the licensing and code regimes exist; however, the truth is that it's normally very straight forward if you have a basic grasp of Newtonian physics and a simple project (for some complex projects it is a mystic art - skyscrapers, tunnels, bridges, etc. are all situations where you have to invoke arcane spells like FEM, empirical approaches, and archaic portions of the code). This is especially true for shallow foundation design where the concrete behaves well (because the loading is so simple) and the code specified soil parameters are excessively conservative. Rather than looking at the code and going through the straight-forward analysis contained in the tiny little section that's applicable (and appropriately titled) most people will see that the code is hundreds of pages long with hundreds of sections and give up before realizing that the building code contains provisions for almost every scenario (building with concrete? there's a section. building with steel? there's a section. building with timber? there's a section. wall? section. beam? section. foundation? section. special circumstances like earthquake or wind or frost? section). Engaging with the code like you did assures that you are not taken for a ride by an unethical contractor or engineer, and it's something I would recommend every owner does before they embark on a project, but honestly a lot of the simple stuff (like a light foundation) is stuff that people used to just do themselves without designing anything and it's not any more safe because you have to get it stamped now. Your initial gut reaction for this simple stuff is usually within an order of magnitude, and often it will be more than is required because people don’t have a good sense of how strong modern building materials are.
As an aside and based on your other post, a slab might not have been the most economical solution for your particular problem. You probably could have just installed some small diameter piles under each solar panel post. I'm surprised your engineer didn't recommend it as this would have much more easily addressed the wind loading issue. Value engineering like this is the real benefit of engaging a knowledgeable/experienced engineer.
Cool Solidworks model. Easy 3D modeling has very much changed the game for small scale projects by allowing people to build a project on their computer and figure out all the little details that you'd normally screw up without an engineer. Having a working 3D model means that your design is probably at a higher level than most. It's cool to take something from an idea to a concept to physical reality.
As an aside and based on your other post, a slab might not have been the most economical solution for your particular problem. You probably could have just installed some small diameter piles under each solar panel post. I'm surprised your engineer didn't recommend it as this would have much more easily addressed the wind loading issue. Value engineering like this is the real benefit of engaging a knowledgeable/experienced engineer.
Cool Solidworks model. Easy 3D modeling has very much changed the game for small scale projects by allowing people to build a project on their computer and figure out all the little details that you'd normally screw up without an engineer. Having a working 3D model means that your design is probably at a higher level than most. It's cool to take something from an idea to a concept to physical reality.
> You probably could have just installed some small diameter piles under each solar panel post. I'm surprised your engineer didn't recommend it as this would have much more easily addressed the wind loading issue.
This is precisely what I designed and the Civil Engineer agreed would work fine. The LA County engineer, for lack of a better word, turned out to be a complete a-hole. Each footing ended-up being a 4 x 4 x 4 foot cube, each over 8000 lbs, eight of them. And then the slab on top of all of that.
The story is a bit more complex than that. Before starting the design phase I put together 3D models of the basic idea and went to the permit office for a consultation. I spoke to zoning, fire and structural/safety/permit (forget what the official title was) engineers. Out of that came specifications for the kind and sizes of lumber I had to use in order to be in compliance...and more.
A couple of months later, after much design work and spending money for a civil engineering firm to do their thing, I submit the plans.
They get rejected by the guy who would later make my life miserable with all of that concrete.
Why?
He didn't like the size of the timber being used. You know, the material he recommended just a couple of months earlier. Nothing significant had changed in the design. He, for example, wanted 8x8 columns, rather than the 6x6 he said I should use. Because I had gone through that initial consultation I had a pile of lumber already purchased awaiting the permits being issued. I could use very little of it after his rejection. That cost me thousands of dollars and probably another two months.
The entire experience was not fun at all. Unnecessary. I don't even want to imagine what it might be like to put a larger project through that office.
The other interesting thing was that the inspector assigned to my project was just-about clueless. As long as it looked right, I probably could have gotten away with anything. My goal was to build a safe and durable structure, so no issues there. I don't even want to imagine what people wanting to cut corners might get away with once they realize their inspector is, for the most part, incompetent.
> Cool Solidworks model. Easy 3D modeling has very much changed the game for small scale projects by allowing people to build a project on their computer and figure out all the little details that you'd normally screw up without an engineer.
Yes, definitely. You can even model and evaluate fit and tolerances. And, of course, run finite element analysis on the whole thing both for structural and aerodynamics.
I actually started with CAD way back during ACAD 1.0 days. I even did a bunch of 3D work in AutoCAD. This wasn't fun due to limitations. Once parametric modeling came into my life I haven't looked back. I still have AutoCAD because we need it for some of our work, but this is pretty much a Solidworks shop. We do product design from concept to prototyping and manufacturing for a range of industries, from commercial to aerospace.
Here's part of the design of a full-scale aircraft simulator (Boeing 777) also done in SW:
https://i.imgur.com/IrWlZRs.png
This is precisely what I designed and the Civil Engineer agreed would work fine. The LA County engineer, for lack of a better word, turned out to be a complete a-hole. Each footing ended-up being a 4 x 4 x 4 foot cube, each over 8000 lbs, eight of them. And then the slab on top of all of that.
The story is a bit more complex than that. Before starting the design phase I put together 3D models of the basic idea and went to the permit office for a consultation. I spoke to zoning, fire and structural/safety/permit (forget what the official title was) engineers. Out of that came specifications for the kind and sizes of lumber I had to use in order to be in compliance...and more.
A couple of months later, after much design work and spending money for a civil engineering firm to do their thing, I submit the plans.
They get rejected by the guy who would later make my life miserable with all of that concrete.
Why?
He didn't like the size of the timber being used. You know, the material he recommended just a couple of months earlier. Nothing significant had changed in the design. He, for example, wanted 8x8 columns, rather than the 6x6 he said I should use. Because I had gone through that initial consultation I had a pile of lumber already purchased awaiting the permits being issued. I could use very little of it after his rejection. That cost me thousands of dollars and probably another two months.
The entire experience was not fun at all. Unnecessary. I don't even want to imagine what it might be like to put a larger project through that office.
The other interesting thing was that the inspector assigned to my project was just-about clueless. As long as it looked right, I probably could have gotten away with anything. My goal was to build a safe and durable structure, so no issues there. I don't even want to imagine what people wanting to cut corners might get away with once they realize their inspector is, for the most part, incompetent.
> Cool Solidworks model. Easy 3D modeling has very much changed the game for small scale projects by allowing people to build a project on their computer and figure out all the little details that you'd normally screw up without an engineer.
Yes, definitely. You can even model and evaluate fit and tolerances. And, of course, run finite element analysis on the whole thing both for structural and aerodynamics.
I actually started with CAD way back during ACAD 1.0 days. I even did a bunch of 3D work in AutoCAD. This wasn't fun due to limitations. Once parametric modeling came into my life I haven't looked back. I still have AutoCAD because we need it for some of our work, but this is pretty much a Solidworks shop. We do product design from concept to prototyping and manufacturing for a range of industries, from commercial to aerospace.
Here's part of the design of a full-scale aircraft simulator (Boeing 777) also done in SW:
https://i.imgur.com/IrWlZRs.png
> And yet you're blaming LA County for this. Civil engineering work is required to be done by engineers.
> if you don't like those laws go out to the boonies and you can build whatever you want, however you want.
Did you even read my post? Here. Quoting:
"However, because I am not a Civil Engineer, I had to hire a firm to, effectively, duplicate my work. Physics is physics, right? That's OK. No problem."
Let me repeat that last part:
"That's OK. No problem."
> Your architect friend would be wrong on that...For point of comparison, the average concrete foundation is 200 lb/square foot, or about 480,000 for a 1-story 2,400 square foot house
You are grotesquely misinterpreting the link you provided. That's the weight per square foot of an entire house, including footings, slabs, tile roof, etc.
> Because self-styled architects are constantly messing up on the math and physics.
Very funny, considering the above.
I mean, just a little bit of critical thinking and math shows how crazy the 480,000 lb number is.
For easy math, a 2,500 sqf house is 50 x 50 feet. Assuming a density of 133 lbs/sqf for concrete:
That slab, at 4 inches thick, comes in at 110,833 lbs.
Now assume a full footing all the way around the slab. That means each footing is 50 feet x 1 foot wide and 28 inches below the slab. I'll ignore the intersection of the footings just to keep the math simple.
Each footing weighs 15,517 lbs. That's a total of 62,067 lbs for footings and 172,900 lbs so far for the house.
Depending on code and type of construction additional footings might be required on the interior of the slab-on-grade construction. I'll just round the 127,000 lbs to 200,000 lbs, again, for rough numbers.
The 480,000 lbs number you came-up with is absolutely ridiculous.
Like my wife (a doctor) likes to say: "Your Google search isn't equivalent to my medical degree."
Regarding what my friend said about my project. First of all, it was a figure of speech, not a precise calculation. "Dude, you could build <insert whatever makes you comfortable here> on that much concrete!". Yes, it was an absolutely ridiculous amount of concrete. It didn't stop at 64,000 lbs. There's a full-on 55 x 45 foot slab, 6 inches thick, with lots of rebar and other details. If we are going to go on raw concrete weight --which isn't the right metric-- it's about 230,000 lbs.
EDIT: For Architects/Civil Engineers who might be reading this. We live in an area that has been classified as a high fire risk zone (wrongly, in my opinion, but there's nothing I can do about it). This gives LA County license to go absolutely insane with some of their requirements. They turned what should have been a relatively simple ground-mount solar project into an absolute nightmare.
Did you even read my post? Here. Quoting:
"However, because I am not a Civil Engineer, I had to hire a firm to, effectively, duplicate my work. Physics is physics, right? That's OK. No problem."
Let me repeat that last part:
"That's OK. No problem."
> Your architect friend would be wrong on that...For point of comparison, the average concrete foundation is 200 lb/square foot, or about 480,000 for a 1-story 2,400 square foot house
You are grotesquely misinterpreting the link you provided. That's the weight per square foot of an entire house, including footings, slabs, tile roof, etc.
> Because self-styled architects are constantly messing up on the math and physics.
Very funny, considering the above.
I mean, just a little bit of critical thinking and math shows how crazy the 480,000 lb number is.
For easy math, a 2,500 sqf house is 50 x 50 feet. Assuming a density of 133 lbs/sqf for concrete:
That slab, at 4 inches thick, comes in at 110,833 lbs.
Now assume a full footing all the way around the slab. That means each footing is 50 feet x 1 foot wide and 28 inches below the slab. I'll ignore the intersection of the footings just to keep the math simple.
Each footing weighs 15,517 lbs. That's a total of 62,067 lbs for footings and 172,900 lbs so far for the house.
Depending on code and type of construction additional footings might be required on the interior of the slab-on-grade construction. I'll just round the 127,000 lbs to 200,000 lbs, again, for rough numbers.
The 480,000 lbs number you came-up with is absolutely ridiculous.
Like my wife (a doctor) likes to say: "Your Google search isn't equivalent to my medical degree."
Regarding what my friend said about my project. First of all, it was a figure of speech, not a precise calculation. "Dude, you could build <insert whatever makes you comfortable here> on that much concrete!". Yes, it was an absolutely ridiculous amount of concrete. It didn't stop at 64,000 lbs. There's a full-on 55 x 45 foot slab, 6 inches thick, with lots of rebar and other details. If we are going to go on raw concrete weight --which isn't the right metric-- it's about 230,000 lbs.
EDIT: For Architects/Civil Engineers who might be reading this. We live in an area that has been classified as a high fire risk zone (wrongly, in my opinion, but there's nothing I can do about it). This gives LA County license to go absolutely insane with some of their requirements. They turned what should have been a relatively simple ground-mount solar project into an absolute nightmare.
ReasonTV made a video about the laundromat case a few years ago.
The video is from 2018, is 2022 and still the same problem persists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExgxwKnH8y4&t=60s
You wnat to make affordable house? Increase the demand. Is not that hard.
The video is from 2018, is 2022 and still the same problem persists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExgxwKnH8y4&t=60s
You wnat to make affordable house? Increase the demand. Is not that hard.
You mean increase the offer.
Yes. I'm a idiot and I wrote it wrong.
This article is a good overview on why some of the dysfunction exists in the DBI - https://missionlocal.org/2021/02/san-francisco-department-of...
Working as designed :/
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/The_Negr...
"Though, the [Golden Gate and SF—Oakland Bay] bridges have contributed to their economic and social growth the neighboring communities resent becoming known as San Francisco’s bedrooms. Oakland which is California’s third largest city is in the same unfavorable position as New York City's Brooklyn. Industries and assembly plants have turned Oakland into a Western Detroit. Its outstanding symbol of activity is the Latham Square Building, headquarters for Henry Kaiser’s vast industrial empire. This city has the largest Negro population on the Pacific Coast."
"San Francisco however, is fast becoming the focal point of the Negroes’ future. Before World War II this city had fewer than 5,000 Negroes. High war wages attracted these people from all over the country to this boom town. More than 45,000 Negroes are squeezed into two areas of, San Francisco today, with an estimated thirty-five percent unemployed." (1954)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/priceonomics/2016/05/11/the-afr...
If current trends continue, a place that was once a center of African-American life will see that population vanish. (2016)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/The_Negr...
"Though, the [Golden Gate and SF—Oakland Bay] bridges have contributed to their economic and social growth the neighboring communities resent becoming known as San Francisco’s bedrooms. Oakland which is California’s third largest city is in the same unfavorable position as New York City's Brooklyn. Industries and assembly plants have turned Oakland into a Western Detroit. Its outstanding symbol of activity is the Latham Square Building, headquarters for Henry Kaiser’s vast industrial empire. This city has the largest Negro population on the Pacific Coast."
"San Francisco however, is fast becoming the focal point of the Negroes’ future. Before World War II this city had fewer than 5,000 Negroes. High war wages attracted these people from all over the country to this boom town. More than 45,000 Negroes are squeezed into two areas of, San Francisco today, with an estimated thirty-five percent unemployed." (1954)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/priceonomics/2016/05/11/the-afr...
If current trends continue, a place that was once a center of African-American life will see that population vanish. (2016)
There's really no other way to read the intent of these policies except for this exact outcome. Black people have been leaving for 50 years straight, and yet people won't even bother to ask why.
here's some more research about this: https://www.landuseinsights.org/cities/san-francisco/
"Free market capitalism" along with "democracy"
Protect the value of your own property
Use the bureaucratic state to achieve your ends
I have no idea of what the end game is, but the dilution of property rights, and the democratic right to protest, is necessary.
In New Zealand a lwa has been passed that means that in almost every case in the three biggest cities building three story apartment buildings is a right, not a privilege. City councils are not pleased, and time will tell how it works out
Protect the value of your own property
Use the bureaucratic state to achieve your ends
I have no idea of what the end game is, but the dilution of property rights, and the democratic right to protest, is necessary.
In New Zealand a lwa has been passed that means that in almost every case in the three biggest cities building three story apartment buildings is a right, not a privilege. City councils are not pleased, and time will tell how it works out
For such a "progressive" city, San Francisco sure is against progress.
Ok, but please don't post this sort of shallow/generic flamebait in HN threads, especially not on divisive topics. It turns the threads into shallow/generic flamewars, which are much less interesting (and nastier) than what we're hoping for here.
"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents."
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents."
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The problem has a name, and its name is Dean Preston.
Half of the Board of Supervisors at any given time are just as bad as Dean, they’re just less vocal. The actual problem is the SF electorate.
The number one thing that voters anywhere do is to prop up sin eaters like Dean Preston. Then everyone is all like "The problem is DEAN PRESTON" as if one moustache twirling guy with an 8 year term could possibly be responsible for 40 years of policy.
That's being unfair to him, there is tremendous local market for millionaire homeowners that still want to think of themselves as socialist revolutionaries as long as the value of their home never ever drops, and he is merely filling that demand
With property prices this high I think it's inevitable. Who is going to be pro development with $1.5m on their mortgage and a property worth $1.7m?
Their equity and net worth is both fragile and contingent upon vehemently impeding the construction of new housing.
Their equity and net worth is both fragile and contingent upon vehemently impeding the construction of new housing.
1 person and their lawyers held up bike lanes for YEARS with lawsuits.
The city isn't a monolith, its not all 1 person, and fixing it isn't always easy: state and federal laws have primacy over certain things, and lets face it "permitting reforms" is hardly the ballot box getter.
But things have gotten better, the parket situation got a lot better, new bike lines, walkable streets, etc. All it took was a deadly global pandemic! Yay progress!
The city isn't a monolith, its not all 1 person, and fixing it isn't always easy: state and federal laws have primacy over certain things, and lets face it "permitting reforms" is hardly the ballot box getter.
But things have gotten better, the parket situation got a lot better, new bike lines, walkable streets, etc. All it took was a deadly global pandemic! Yay progress!
It's always been "progress for me, not for thee" type of thing. "Let's solve homelessness, but keep them out of my neighbourhood!" When conservatives complain about the "coastal left" this is what they're talking about. People who are wealthy and hypocritical in the extreme.
There is nothing contradictory about wanting to solve homelessness and wanting them out of your neighborhood. In fact, that is exactly why many people want to end it
> There is nothing contradictory about wanting to solve homelessness and wanting them out of your neighborhood
Yes there is. If you want them housed, but not in your neighborhood, then you either want them out in a forest somewhere, or you want them in someone else's neighborhood. The former isn't actually housing them, and the latter is the contradiction.
Yes there is. If you want them housed, but not in your neighborhood, then you either want them out in a forest somewhere, or you want them in someone else's neighborhood. The former isn't actually housing them, and the latter is the contradiction.
Then build housing that is accompanied by parking, mental health facilities and rehab facilities.
Building _only_ housing, and leaving it derelict when the mentally ill eventually trash it leads to a drop in quality of life and safety for the entire neighborhood.
Building _only_ housing, and leaving it derelict when the mentally ill eventually trash it leads to a drop in quality of life and safety for the entire neighborhood.
I don't think any proposals have been obstructed on the grounds that opposed neighborhoods felt like more facilities should accompany the shelters in their neighborhood. I'd be satisfied to see that though.
If they are housed, you don't have homeless in your neighborhood by definition.
I was choosing one word to refer to a contiguous population of people. I could have chosen to call them formerly-homeless, but the distinction felt moot, because typically we are referring to people unable to provide their own shelter as homeless, whether or not they havea place to stay (hence the term homeless-shelter).
Just look at the SRO scene in the tenderloin. Owned by non-profits funded by the knob hill crowd to keep the chronically homeless (mental illness, drug addition) warehoused in one small area.
Hence the need to spread the population out into everyone's neighborhood, rather than strong arming under represented, low-income populations, and forcing them to take the entire burden in their neighborhood.
This is not an issue that can be summarized in a HN comment, but you're not going to get anyone to agree to the extreme end of either spectrum (peak NIMBY or peak progressive), it just won't work.
YIMBY is not a synonym for progressive. I'm not sure I know any YIMBYs who aren't relatively wealthy libertarians.
waves I consider myself a YIMBY, and I also consider myself pretty progressive on most issues and certainly not a libertarian...so you know at least one now.
I've found SF is nothing like what conservative pundits describe. I don't mean better or worse, just different. It doesn't fit the narratives of national politics.
[deleted]
The coastal left, especially those that are wealthy, do not care whatsoever what these “conservatives” think about them.
What blows my mind traveling around the country is that, on the ground, Iowa or Texas are egalitarian paradise compared to NYC or SF. I can’t stand to be in those cities these days because of the yawing wealth and racial divides.
I really wonder how much of the progressive drama results from these highly educated folks working in overwhelmingly white/Asian industries and living in places like SF or NYC where nearly all the Black or brown people they meet are working service jobs for them.
I really wonder how much of the progressive drama results from these highly educated folks working in overwhelmingly white/Asian industries and living in places like SF or NYC where nearly all the Black or brown people they meet are working service jobs for them.
There's been a lot of articles lately talking about how all those previously easy to live areas have become less livable due to... well people moving there.
The root cause is demand > supply. That's it. Everything gets more expensive, and those who can get paid a lot do, and everyone else has to make do.
Texas yes, but tell me about Austin... and how it has all the same problems of the bay area now, entirely because people moved there.
The root cause is demand > supply. That's it. Everything gets more expensive, and those who can get paid a lot do, and everyone else has to make do.
Texas yes, but tell me about Austin... and how it has all the same problems of the bay area now, entirely because people moved there.
The equation has two terms: supply and demand. So it’s not just “people moving there” (demand), but also how easy it is to create housing (supply). Texas makes it much cheaper and easier to create housing than does California. If it was demand alone then California housing prices should be going down because people are moving from California to Texas.
It’s also about what kind of industries each state chooses to cultivate. Economies based on knowledge work magnify class and racial disparities because they have high barriers to entry and tend to produce winner-take-all stratification. That directly produces the highly stratified and segregated environment you see in SF and NYC.
It’s also about what kind of industries each state chooses to cultivate. Economies based on knowledge work magnify class and racial disparities because they have high barriers to entry and tend to produce winner-take-all stratification. That directly produces the highly stratified and segregated environment you see in SF and NYC.
Do you think it is people moving or do you think it is people moving and then voting in people to enact the same policies as the location they moved from?
If person A leaves a location because of crap/idiotic policies/laws, moves to a new location, then votes in people that will institute those same crap/idiotic policies/laws the just fled again, is person A not the problem?
If person A leaves a location because of crap/idiotic policies/laws, moves to a new location, then votes in people that will institute those same crap/idiotic policies/laws the just fled again, is person A not the problem?
could you point to some examples of this happening?
Off the top of my head, Texas. Texas was a majority solid red for a long time. Now a massive influx of has made multiple seats that historically have been safely red, competitive, or even flip to blue.
Look at the places people are moving to in Texas then look at those locations elections.
Look at the places people are moving to in Texas then look at those locations elections.
I understand that there is a demographic shift in urban centers outside of the coasts. I meant: can you point to any policy changes after these demographic shifts which have lead to an up-tick of NIMBY/anti-housing regulations in these areas like what is seen in SF?
I honestly don't pay close attention to NIMBY/anti-house regulations anywhere outside northern California to notice. I should have been more clear I was not specifically talking about that.
In this case I was thinking primarily of crime and some of the DA in Texas's big cities. Dallas in particular I remember a DA was elected that pissed off a lot of people on the right by stopping prosecution of lesser offences and setting low bails. The right argues that leads to more crime until its a common place.
In this case I was thinking primarily of crime and some of the DA in Texas's big cities. Dallas in particular I remember a DA was elected that pissed off a lot of people on the right by stopping prosecution of lesser offences and setting low bails. The right argues that leads to more crime until its a common place.
The root cause is demand > supply. But the important part is supply not demand.
Austin is liberal like SF and is known for restricting housing supply.
2.3 million people live in Houston, and only a million live in Austin yet Houston is far cheaper to live in than Austin.
Austin is liberal like SF and is known for restricting housing supply.
2.3 million people live in Houston, and only a million live in Austin yet Houston is far cheaper to live in than Austin.
>Texas yes, but tell me about Austin... and how it has all the same problems of the bay area now, entirely because people moved there.
Austin you say? Now just where did all those people in Austin come from one wonders...
Austin you say? Now just where did all those people in Austin come from one wonders...
You just compared two of the most expensive cities in the world against two entire states.
I’m thinking specifically about Des Moines and Dallas but you can pick any city in those states.
The median home price in Dallas is comparable to most cities outside of LA and SF in California, and higher than that of Chicago. Austin? Don't even bother looking it up. You should have said Houston. :)
The fact remains that Dallas and it’s surrounding suburbs is a vastly more egalitarian and less stratified place than SF or NYC. It has tons of affordable areas near the city. A key problem is that the industries powering NYC and SF (tech and finance) are massive drivers of inequality. They create a huge upper middle class that just sucks up all the resources. That’s exacerbated by the difficulty of building housing, but both sides of the equation are the problem. Northern Virginia where I grew up is a place where it’s easier to build housing, but has a similar problem. The middle class has been driven out as knowledge industries have taken over.
Iowa is even better lovely because there is basically no upper middle class. Even the farmers who might have tens of millions in land are pretty cash poor.
Iowa is even better lovely because there is basically no upper middle class. Even the farmers who might have tens of millions in land are pretty cash poor.
New York is bad. California is pretty rough too. But Louisiana and Mississippi both have higher Gini coefficients than California. It's not tech and finance that made Louisiana and Mississippi the 2nd and 3rd least equal states in the country.
Further: if you dig into Gini by cities, your hypothesis gets even weaker: one ranking I found goes:
No California city even appears in the top 10, and the list is dominated by non-finance-centers in red states.
1. San Juan
2. Atlanta
3. Miami
4. New Orleans
5. New York
6. Cleveland
7. Cincinatti
8. Dallas
9. Tampa
10. Chicago
No California city even appears in the top 10, and the list is dominated by non-finance-centers in red states.
As a resident of New Orleans thanks for posting this.
San Fransisco is the epitome of visually seeing what is so messed up about our current breed of Capitalism.
Orlando was very similar when I lived there - with Disney World literally on the other side of the highway from extremely derelict project housing. I would drive through I-437 and just shake my head in sadness.
It's an eerie reminder of how fragile life is and how little we collectively care about solving these problems above making money for our individual selves.
Orlando was very similar when I lived there - with Disney World literally on the other side of the highway from extremely derelict project housing. I would drive through I-437 and just shake my head in sadness.
It's an eerie reminder of how fragile life is and how little we collectively care about solving these problems above making money for our individual selves.
I fail to see how the housing issue in SF and the issue you mentioned in Orlando is related to capitalism.
I think people with capital would love to develop housing in SF which would ease the housing problem in SF. In fact, people with capital really are the only people that may be able to solve the housing problem in SF. And the reason why they can't do this is the local government. How is this some sort of problem with capitalism?
I think people with capital would love to develop housing in SF which would ease the housing problem in SF. In fact, people with capital really are the only people that may be able to solve the housing problem in SF. And the reason why they can't do this is the local government. How is this some sort of problem with capitalism?
>> I fail to see how the housing issue in SF and the issue you mentioned in Orlando is related to capitalism.
Then I can only logically concede that you are either blind, or intentionally ignorant of the blindingly obvious correlation.
Whether it’s Disney and projects across the highway or something like skid row in a state with the largest collection of wealth in the country, it all boils down to the same ‘I’m comfortable and I don’t want to have to think about not being comfortable’ attitude that allows this country to have billionaires and do absolutely nothing to help these people.
Communism isn’t a perfect system, but fundamentally; it’s supposed to care about the individual in a way capitalism has shown it is fundamentally incapable of.
It seems we currently have no political system that seems to balance progress with the needs of the people - but this preposterous 1%-bullshit capitalist system is so destined to collapse that if it wasn’t for said 1% so desperately clinging onto it so they can maintain wealth and power, it would have long ago.
It’s only greed and selfishness that powers the current American political and economic system.
To say it’s ‘disturbing’ would be an extremely shameful understatement.
Then I can only logically concede that you are either blind, or intentionally ignorant of the blindingly obvious correlation.
Whether it’s Disney and projects across the highway or something like skid row in a state with the largest collection of wealth in the country, it all boils down to the same ‘I’m comfortable and I don’t want to have to think about not being comfortable’ attitude that allows this country to have billionaires and do absolutely nothing to help these people.
Communism isn’t a perfect system, but fundamentally; it’s supposed to care about the individual in a way capitalism has shown it is fundamentally incapable of.
It seems we currently have no political system that seems to balance progress with the needs of the people - but this preposterous 1%-bullshit capitalist system is so destined to collapse that if it wasn’t for said 1% so desperately clinging onto it so they can maintain wealth and power, it would have long ago.
It’s only greed and selfishness that powers the current American political and economic system.
To say it’s ‘disturbing’ would be an extremely shameful understatement.
People do what they can to prop up the value of the properties into which they've invested their capital. The last thing they want is competition in the property market, hence their support for local government rules to hinder development. This is capitalism shutting down the free market.
Capitalism is when you exploit government policy to exclude others people from a market, in order to make more money?
Being incentivized to make money is not all it takes to make it capitalism. If the policy is a net-negative for the market as a whole then the market will work to get rid of the policy, because there will be more people excluded than benefit. The only reason it would stick around is if there are motivations excluding capital/market aspects, such as equity, altruism, and social good.
Being incentivized to make money is not all it takes to make it capitalism. If the policy is a net-negative for the market as a whole then the market will work to get rid of the policy, because there will be more people excluded than benefit. The only reason it would stick around is if there are motivations excluding capital/market aspects, such as equity, altruism, and social good.
> Capitalism is when you exploit government policy to exclude others people from a market, in order to make more money?
Yes. Markets incentivize anticompetitive behavior.
Government policy is far from the only way to exclude others from the market, so you'll want to pursue other strategies as well: dumping to destroy small competitors, merging to incorporate them, deals with peers to avoid competing head-on, etc. In theory these are all illegal, but in practice they are commonplace, so don't neglect them.
> Being incentivized to make money is not all it takes to make it capitalism.
No, but strong property rights and perpetual private ownership of land are very much capitalism things, as is tilting the power equation away from "people" and towards "owners." In theory this incentivizes good stewardship and investment, but in practice it also incentivizes cornering the market.
> If the policy is a net-negative for the market as a whole then the market will work to get rid of the policy
Why on earth would you think that? "Monopolize resource, drive up scarcity, profit" is a quintessential capitalist hustle. It leverages the same machinery used to incentivize types of investment that are actually productive, but it's a lot easier than being actually productive. You just have to get in early.
> The only reason it would stick around is if there are motivations excluding capital/market aspects, such as equity, altruism, and social good.
Lol, so homeowners who don't want to see their property values tank have nothing to do with the problem? NIMBYs are just a bunch of misguided altruistic do-gooders who need to be persuaded of the merits in free market capitalism?
My sides.
Yes. Markets incentivize anticompetitive behavior.
Government policy is far from the only way to exclude others from the market, so you'll want to pursue other strategies as well: dumping to destroy small competitors, merging to incorporate them, deals with peers to avoid competing head-on, etc. In theory these are all illegal, but in practice they are commonplace, so don't neglect them.
> Being incentivized to make money is not all it takes to make it capitalism.
No, but strong property rights and perpetual private ownership of land are very much capitalism things, as is tilting the power equation away from "people" and towards "owners." In theory this incentivizes good stewardship and investment, but in practice it also incentivizes cornering the market.
> If the policy is a net-negative for the market as a whole then the market will work to get rid of the policy
Why on earth would you think that? "Monopolize resource, drive up scarcity, profit" is a quintessential capitalist hustle. It leverages the same machinery used to incentivize types of investment that are actually productive, but it's a lot easier than being actually productive. You just have to get in early.
> The only reason it would stick around is if there are motivations excluding capital/market aspects, such as equity, altruism, and social good.
Lol, so homeowners who don't want to see their property values tank have nothing to do with the problem? NIMBYs are just a bunch of misguided altruistic do-gooders who need to be persuaded of the merits in free market capitalism?
My sides.
Certain markets in the US may incentivize anticompetitive behaviour to a sufficient degree to cause such problems.
Though that’s only for dynamics in the domestic market. In the global market such behaviour simply weakens the position of the US overall and thus the global market self corrects, eventually. Typically this is done by the global markets via boosting another rising country or bloc to displace the position of the countries with less competitive markets.
Of course this is a very long term process that could take centuries, but there was never a guarantee that market forces would resolve itself within a single human lifespan.
Though that’s only for dynamics in the domestic market. In the global market such behaviour simply weakens the position of the US overall and thus the global market self corrects, eventually. Typically this is done by the global markets via boosting another rising country or bloc to displace the position of the countries with less competitive markets.
Of course this is a very long term process that could take centuries, but there was never a guarantee that market forces would resolve itself within a single human lifespan.
Capitalism concerns who owns the means of production. I think you’re confused.
Its textbook definition and how it actually manifests itself in reality are never going to be the same thing.
The GP had an issue with a particular "breed of capitalism". Capitalism is an ideal just as much as socialism, and humans aren't great at living up to ideals. "Particular breeds" are all we are ever going to have - our best bet is likely to fix the "breed" rather than attempt to replace the system entirely. Social democracies that can harness the wealth-growing capabilities of capitalism tempered with a degree of socialism so everyone gets to enjoy the benefits seem to work pretty well in much of the developed world.
Capitalism rewards effective producers by routing capital for them to expand. When consumers conspire to force producer shutdowns, the problem is politics rather than capitalism.
Except that those consumers are doing so because they believe it's the best way to expand (or at least protect) their capital.
Such a position wouldn't make any sense in a non-capitalist economy, so at least part of the problem is how to actually ensure capitalism works effectively given human nature.
Every single land owner in SF, big and small, knows that a huge chunk of their net worth is directly due to the housing crisis and will do anything to avoid seeing that wealth evaporate.
That's what it has to do with capitalism.
That's what it has to do with capitalism.
California is complete nightmare state. if weather and geography wasn't there, the state would be unlivable. The legal system there has gone so much to the other extreme that if you ever have to interact with it, you could be the party in ruins. For example, if you ever get divorce in California, you can be turned into ATM slave for your ex for life.
The nightmare state full of high salaries and high life expectancy.
California's housing situation is incredibly bad, there are some other bad parts too, like the water/fire situation, but there are some huge advantages to the state as well.
California's housing situation is incredibly bad, there are some other bad parts too, like the water/fire situation, but there are some huge advantages to the state as well.
Advantages such as...?
The high salaries is concertrated in very small part of the state. It is also purely accidental and due to historical reasons. On median basis, the state is among the poorest in the nation. Fire/water is only tip of the issues. The list goes on with school quality (outside of few pockets of ultra-rich neighbourhoods), enormous tax burden, bismal transportation, consistently failed multi-billion $ government projects etc.
The high salaries is concertrated in very small part of the state. It is also purely accidental and due to historical reasons. On median basis, the state is among the poorest in the nation. Fire/water is only tip of the issues. The list goes on with school quality (outside of few pockets of ultra-rich neighbourhoods), enormous tax burden, bismal transportation, consistently failed multi-billion $ government projects etc.
> Advantages such as...?
High life expectancy, high salaries/strong economy, excellent weather, ethnic/cultural diversity, huge range of beautiful nature/geographic diversity, relatively progressive tax burden compared to other states, some labor-friendly regulations like parental leave and ban on non-competes, great food scenes in LA and the bay area, great public colleges/universities, lots of pro sports teams if you're into that.
High life expectancy, high salaries/strong economy, excellent weather, ethnic/cultural diversity, huge range of beautiful nature/geographic diversity, relatively progressive tax burden compared to other states, some labor-friendly regulations like parental leave and ban on non-competes, great food scenes in LA and the bay area, great public colleges/universities, lots of pro sports teams if you're into that.
I dont understand the problem. The Bay Area already has 8 million people. Its busy already and water supply is limited. The residents have voted and agreed to limit development, keep the city as it is. This is democracy in action. If you want development and/or high density living, move to other locations or NY or Texas or Florida.
> Its busy already and water supply
Only 10% of California's water use is urban/residential.
> The residents have voted and agreed to limit development, keep the city as it is
In violation of state law, put in place by a larger number of state voters.
> If you want development and/or high density living, move to other locations or NY or Texas or Florida.
People go where the jobs are.
Only 10% of California's water use is urban/residential.
> The residents have voted and agreed to limit development, keep the city as it is
In violation of state law, put in place by a larger number of state voters.
> If you want development and/or high density living, move to other locations or NY or Texas or Florida.
People go where the jobs are.
> People go where the jobs are.
The jobs go where the people are. If companies can't find people in SF because no one can afford to live there they'll move.
The jobs go where the people are. If companies can't find people in SF because no one can afford to live there they'll move.
Maybe. But a lot of companies open offices where their owners want to live, near related businesses, near relevant universities, and so on.
They may yet leave. But if so, what will SF have accomplished? Becoming Aspen on the bay?
They may yet leave. But if so, what will SF have accomplished? Becoming Aspen on the bay?
Having office capacity for more people than housing has capacity for is the problem.
I am a resident of SF and disagree with the current policy. The only way to fix it is for residents who care about development to convince others. Democracy only works if there is discourse, otherwise nothing would change
Also, in SF we have more than enough water. Maybe you are thinking of Southern California more than 300 miles away?
Also, in SF we have more than enough water. Maybe you are thinking of Southern California more than 300 miles away?
They announced “To help extend our water supplies, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission declared a Water Shortage Emergency in November 2021. The action calls for a 11% reduction in water use across our regional system.”
https://sfpuc.org/learning/conserve-water/we-are-drought
https://sfpuc.org/learning/conserve-water/we-are-drought
…and this is another group of citizens organizing and advocating for a different outcome on future votes. It is democracy in action.
If you don’t like citizens organizing and advocating for democratic outcomes in the bay area, you can move to NY or Texas or Florida, where democratic decisions do not impact the bay area. (Do you see how the “just move away” rhetoric breaks down under a little bit of scrutiny?)
If you don’t like citizens organizing and advocating for democratic outcomes in the bay area, you can move to NY or Texas or Florida, where democratic decisions do not impact the bay area. (Do you see how the “just move away” rhetoric breaks down under a little bit of scrutiny?)
> This is democracy in action
One challenge in YIMBY-oriented organizing is that "future residents" who would benefit most from new developments have no political power to wield in order to get them approved — because they don't live there yet — because they can't, since there is not housing for them
One challenge in YIMBY-oriented organizing is that "future residents" who would benefit most from new developments have no political power to wield in order to get them approved — because they don't live there yet — because they can't, since there is not housing for them
Yes, as someone in his mid 20s I am pissed that everyone before me kicked the can down the road long enough for this to become my problem. It’s not just SF, it’s a Bay Area/California/National problem - at varying levels of severity and impact.
Of course nobody forces me to live in SF. But if I leave someone will just take my place - this isn’t just a housing problem, it’s also a mismatch in where jobs are relative to where housing is. My desk will get reassigned to someone else who will likely also live in SF (because we can afford it, but the people with families making my food can’t).
The least we can do now is fix it forward and make sure it doesn’t get worse. Even for people like me and the hypothetical low wage worker with a family, the sooner we fix this the sooner we can reap the benefits.
Of course nobody forces me to live in SF. But if I leave someone will just take my place - this isn’t just a housing problem, it’s also a mismatch in where jobs are relative to where housing is. My desk will get reassigned to someone else who will likely also live in SF (because we can afford it, but the people with families making my food can’t).
The least we can do now is fix it forward and make sure it doesn’t get worse. Even for people like me and the hypothetical low wage worker with a family, the sooner we fix this the sooner we can reap the benefits.
"everyone before" you created America's state with the richest and largest population. It has the highest desity of people West of the Mississippi. If you want cheap housing move to Wisconsin and work remotely. If you want to live in the most desireable state in the world, dont complain people before you "messed things up".
Some of them created that, a whole lot more just did regular jobs and voted for things like neighborhood preservation or fixing property taxes when a property is exchanged.
One reason I am in this position to begin with is that Bay Area municipalities approved huge office projects without increasing housing in tandem. Those policies were explicitly to attract people like me - high income office workers who would generate payroll and sales taxes while stimulating the local economy as I buy goods and services, without a large net increase in public expenditures since the static housing supply also keeps the population relatively static.
I have no reservations in calling that out as a mistake. I understand the rationale behind those decisions and if I hadn’t seen what it led to now, I may have supported them. I can understand why people who aren’t affected because they are longtime homeowners, or who were affected and bought in at high prices, really don’t want to rock the boat.
But those policies are reaching their breaking point and materially affecting people’s lives negatively. Because of high housing prices many people are living in smaller/older units, crammed in with more people than they’d prefer, or living very far away from their job. Besides high housing prices this has plenty of other negative effects like bad traffic, social spending on people with what would be middle incomes in the rest of the country, and definitely a contributor to homelessness (something like half of which have jobs and live in unstable environments like their cars - not talking about the addicts at 7th and Market).
It’s systemic - you can rationalize the pain by saying any individual could move away if they don’t like it, but that doesn’t change the imbalance in jobs relative to housing.
Also, I can easily pay for as much housing as I want. But I’d like to stay here and have room for children, not deal with high priced everywhere because rent is too high and it’s too hard to find low skill workers, and not see my neighbors suffer. If you don’t like my presence in this area why don’t you move?
One reason I am in this position to begin with is that Bay Area municipalities approved huge office projects without increasing housing in tandem. Those policies were explicitly to attract people like me - high income office workers who would generate payroll and sales taxes while stimulating the local economy as I buy goods and services, without a large net increase in public expenditures since the static housing supply also keeps the population relatively static.
I have no reservations in calling that out as a mistake. I understand the rationale behind those decisions and if I hadn’t seen what it led to now, I may have supported them. I can understand why people who aren’t affected because they are longtime homeowners, or who were affected and bought in at high prices, really don’t want to rock the boat.
But those policies are reaching their breaking point and materially affecting people’s lives negatively. Because of high housing prices many people are living in smaller/older units, crammed in with more people than they’d prefer, or living very far away from their job. Besides high housing prices this has plenty of other negative effects like bad traffic, social spending on people with what would be middle incomes in the rest of the country, and definitely a contributor to homelessness (something like half of which have jobs and live in unstable environments like their cars - not talking about the addicts at 7th and Market).
It’s systemic - you can rationalize the pain by saying any individual could move away if they don’t like it, but that doesn’t change the imbalance in jobs relative to housing.
Also, I can easily pay for as much housing as I want. But I’d like to stay here and have room for children, not deal with high priced everywhere because rent is too high and it’s too hard to find low skill workers, and not see my neighbors suffer. If you don’t like my presence in this area why don’t you move?
> If you don’t like my presence in this area why don’t you move?
I live on the East Coast. You should come here its great.
I live on the East Coast. You should come here its great.
Stopping development doesn't really 'keep the city as it is', though. There will continue to be greater demand, which will make rents higher, which will create more poverty.
>which will make rents higher, which will create more poverty.
At some point though don't rents become high enough it's almost a 'luxury' to live there? What proportion of people paying say $15k/month in rent are in poverty?
If the tyranny of the majority decide they want SF to be an ultra-rich enclave I'm trying to imagine how that can even be stopped, regardless. There's no constitutional right to free-market housing. IMO the 51% of best situated home/property owners will always have the incentive to impose their tyranny on others, and if they flush out the 49% due to elevated cost and repeat this iteratively you end up with an ever-concentrated hyper-wealthy enclave. That kind of self-reinforcing loop appears to be what SF is getting locked into.
At some point though don't rents become high enough it's almost a 'luxury' to live there? What proportion of people paying say $15k/month in rent are in poverty?
If the tyranny of the majority decide they want SF to be an ultra-rich enclave I'm trying to imagine how that can even be stopped, regardless. There's no constitutional right to free-market housing. IMO the 51% of best situated home/property owners will always have the incentive to impose their tyranny on others, and if they flush out the 49% due to elevated cost and repeat this iteratively you end up with an ever-concentrated hyper-wealthy enclave. That kind of self-reinforcing loop appears to be what SF is getting locked into.
The Bay Area is extremely wealthy and on paper should be a pinnacle of human achievement.
Besides what the other comments are saying about residential water usage being a non factor, I'll just point out a competitor: Randstad. For those not aware, Randtad is the Amsterdam metro area.
Ranstad has as many people as the Bay Area in half the space, so double density (to your "the Bay Area is full" bit).
Except for techbros and probably a few other really small population groups, and unfortunately also except for the weather (the Bay Area has better weather), Randstad completely mops the floor with the Bay Area in terms of livability.
Besides what the other comments are saying about residential water usage being a non factor, I'll just point out a competitor: Randstad. For those not aware, Randtad is the Amsterdam metro area.
Ranstad has as many people as the Bay Area in half the space, so double density (to your "the Bay Area is full" bit).
Except for techbros and probably a few other really small population groups, and unfortunately also except for the weather (the Bay Area has better weather), Randstad completely mops the floor with the Bay Area in terms of livability.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say about the Netherlands. Actually I have a lot of family in towns around Amsterdam. Nimby rules are much higher than Bay Area, development is impossible in most of the land which is why there are big green belts and low density villages. And it rains regularly so no shortage of water.
The other comments have just said that the water shortage is not caused by people living there, it's due to agriculture and industry. Nothing to do with cities.
What I'm saying is that for how much money there is in the Bay Area, it is comparatively crap to other top metro areas around the world. Is there even a city from the Bay Area in the top most liveable cities in the world?
What I'm saying is that for how much money there is in the Bay Area, it is comparatively crap to other top metro areas around the world. Is there even a city from the Bay Area in the top most liveable cities in the world?
100 years ago the population of California was 3.4 mil vs 6.7 mil in the Netherlands. Today California has 40 mil vs 17 mil. The problem is not "too many restrictions on development" its too much development, which has ruined the quality of life. You want to add more people? How many more?
The Netherlands is about 43k sqkm. California is 430k sqkm. You do the math :-)
It's bad development, not development itself. Car centric, bad public transport, low population densities in cities, etc.
It's bad development, not development itself. Car centric, bad public transport, low population densities in cities, etc.
> It's bad development, not development itself. Car centric, bad public transport, low population densities in cities, etc.
If its so bad, how come its so expensive and people want to move there? The population of Amsterdam is the same as it was 60 years ago. It isn't popular, I'm not sure why you think its a good model - esp as it restricts development so strictly.
If its so bad, how come its so expensive and people want to move there? The population of Amsterdam is the same as it was 60 years ago. It isn't popular, I'm not sure why you think its a good model - esp as it restricts development so strictly.
And other people want to expand development so that people of all socioeconomic classes can live there not just the ultra-rich.
Well, it's not hard to understand. Let me give you an example. About 3 years ago government used eminent domain and demolished two rows of townhouses to expand a highway. 'residents have voted and agreed' is not a democracy example I'm afraid.
There's simply no more room for people in San Francisco. More housing will only cause more problems, the rest of the infrastructure in the city isn't going to scale.
Other parts of the world apparently can live with much more density.
The 1.7 million people in Manhattan's 37 square miles would like a word.
"there is not enough room" is never a good enough excuse in city planning.
…said people in 1870
> So he set out to get the project denied at the Board of Supervisors so he could settle out his building rights in court
> Knowing he was likely headed to court, Tillman refused to jump through the hoops normally required for getting a housing project off the ground in San Francisco.
There are a lot of real issues here, but this article gives a skewed picture of the problems by focusing on a somewhat unusual example, in which the owner actively resisted the city's process with the intention of going to court. Tillman has done plenty of media and activism, and it seems his goal was not just to get the project approved in order to proceed, but to use the legal system to clarify developers rights more broadly. Whatever you think of that approach, I think "sue all the way to a state judge and set a precedent" was always going to be slow.
UPDATE: to clarify, I'm in no way trying to defend the city's process, corrupt officials, etc. I just think the article could have illustrated the problems better by focusing on a project that took the typical approach and paid out X, was delayed Y years etc, rather than Tillman's more unusual strategy.