Discussion
  • Read More
    Cam/ronHamilton Nolan
    1/13/16 2:37pm

    SF has the old 80's chestnut, “Sunset Zoning” where many zones in the city prohibit new buildings that are tall enough to block sunlight over parks and public buildings an hour after sunset. It was meant to prevent the “Manhattanization” of SF, you see.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      SonicToothCam/ron
      1/13/16 2:43pm

      It’s because we’re so much smarter about this sort of thing on the west coast.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      JohannesClimacusCam/ron
      1/13/16 2:43pm

      And thank the f-ing lord for that. Manhattan sucks. SF is beautiful and livable and you can actually see the sun when walking on the sidewalks.

      Economic segregation happens everywhere, naturally as a matter of course. If you want a more financially intergrated society, dampen the extreme distributive outcomes before that money is spent on housing. Tax the rich. Fiscal policy is the answer, not requiring San Francisco to become Manhattan, which incidentally did nothing to make Manhattan less expensive. Massive expansionn has simply fed the beast and now international money is parked in empty real estate.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    BDCBHamilton Nolan
    1/13/16 2:47pm

    Density is good, but I still don’t think this sufficiently grapples with the stark preferences of the anti-gentrification crowd. Poor, historically disadvantaged groups that have lived in a now-trendy neighborhood for some time don’t want a bunch of development in their neighborhoods in order to accommodate people who want to move there. This is because such development changes the nature of the neighborhood, even if such developments will have allotments for affordable housing or whatever. What they want is for the city to a) grant them primary right to live there, b) freeze their rent or lower it, and c) pay for all of this through public subsidies extracted from Whitey. Maybe even, y'know, enforce the building codes and spruce up the joints. Hell, the city could even become the landlord!

    The justification behind this philosophy is that community is basically the only wealth these folks have, and by dropping condos in their neighborhoods you are providing a benefit to yuppies on the backs of the oppressed. This is bad because [insert social justice reasoning here].

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      SuperpowersBDCB
      1/13/16 2:54pm

      You think rich people don’t act in the same way? They want to prevent people from moving into their neighborhoods and they are successful because of MONEY. Maybe it’s something that people do regardless of economic class.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      BDCBSuperpowers
      1/13/16 2:58pm

      You’re right, and in that case the motivations are the same but everything after my third sentence doesn't really apply to them because they don't have a very compelling moral case from a progressive perspective.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ThrumbolioHamilton Nolan
    1/13/16 3:14pm

    GLIB TAKEAWAY: NIMBYs are fucking assholes.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ReburnsABurningReturnsThrumbolio
      1/13/16 4:09pm

      Yeah, NIMBYs suck.

      Wait, you want to build a Mega City One style apartment block behind my house?

      Zoning laws rock!

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      RobNYCThrumbolio
      1/13/16 4:18pm

      But everyone is an NIMBY.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    BurnerSandersIn2016Hamilton Nolan
    1/13/16 2:40pm

    Try telling this to any “progressive” San Franciscan, and you’ll hear an endless stream of absurd rationalization about how we shouldn’t allow upzoning because new housing is too expensive anyway (how did you think it got that way, geniuses?), and kids will die from the extra couple minutes of shade every day, and building more to deal with a shortage is somehow evil Reaganomics or something.

    They don’t know exactly how to fix this, but they know one thing: the right solution will certainly involve no inconvenience to them, ever, in any form, and you should go find it for them.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Cam/ronBurnerSandersIn2016
      1/13/16 2:42pm

      Many also forget that the historical preservationist crowd played a major role in the lack of new housing for the past 30 years.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Peeing On R. KellyBurnerSandersIn2016
      1/13/16 2:53pm

      Do you have any cheese to go with all that whine?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    signofzetaHamilton Nolan
    1/13/16 2:37pm

    The clear answer is to be like Texas and not have zoning laws. That way the oil refinery can be right next to your kid’s school and your parent’s retirement community!

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      boaboaboatengtengtengsignofzeta
      1/13/16 2:42pm

      That’s just Houston, no?

      (And Houston’s ability to have strip clubs right next to a pre-school is hilarious.)

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      signofzetaboaboaboatengtengteng
      1/13/16 2:44pm

      I believe that the major cities aside from Houston have some zoning, but most of the state does not. Which is how you literally get things like fertilizer plants next to schools and retirement communities.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    mmsfcHamilton Nolan
    1/13/16 5:08pm

    There’s a new saying in San Francisco, “We don’t have corruption because our politicians just change laws to accommodate the crooks.”

    The SF Planning Commission very secretly decided to change zoning laws in a few very desirable neighborhoods so that developers no longer have to abide by the same rules as home owners. A developer or owner of a multi-unit building would be allowed to add a minimum of two stories and remove backyards without having to ask permission or be concerned about the effect on neighbors or the neighborhood so long as they made 30% of the units “affordable housing.” Note that “affordable housing” is 10% below market rate in a city where the median home price is $1.5 million.

    A developer may also meet the requirement by adding at least one 450 sq ft studio apartment that rents for between $2500 and $3500 per month and made available to those making between $80,000 and $100,000/year. In effect, a developer can legally evict tenants, demolish a building, then because it is a new building not subject to rent control, replace two units with ten units. Three of those units must be “affordable,” not attractive, but seven would be at market rate.

    There’s nothing to stop a developer from turning rental units into condos. This is, of course, the whole point: for developers to make a great deal of money very quickly. Destorying neighborhoods, the very thing they use to sell the condos, is the by product.

    Those who pull out the utterly false economic canard of supply and demand, ignore the fact that supply & demand a) isn’t really an economic theory, it was created to deregulate certain markets for profiteering and, b) if it were true, then density wouldn’t be concentrated in the most profitable areas, it would be spread across a wide geography. The housing crisis isn’t affecting the rich, it is destroying the poor and lower middle class.

    The only thing the rich have to worry about is how their favorite restaurants can’t find wait staff becasue $15/hour isn’t enough to live in San Francisco.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Drakkon- Gravity is HOLDING AMERICA DOWN!!! Wake up people!Hamilton Nolan
      1/13/16 3:09pm

      I have one for ya. City of St Louis. You may see where is this headed already.

      Big National Restaurant Chain wants to do some work to the property. Needs a variance. I, the contractor, show up to the variance appeal expecting smooth sailing. The ‘neighborhood association’ has written a letter of protest against our work. Why? Ugly? No. Dangerous? No. They want Big National Restaurant Chain to join their special empowerment taxation zone. They want a address-specific sales tax applied and a special additional property tax applied so they can spend their money within their 10 block area to beautify and irrigate and other gentry-like activities.

      They literally blackmail the chain and the landlord into joining this zone and paying extra taxes. This is wealthy white money specially set aside to be spent within the wealthy white neighborhood. They don’t want their taxoney fixing street lights on the north side. If it snows down in the hood, they can drive on it. We’re not paying to clear your streets. We need flowers replanted seasonally and no use.in having flowers if they never get watered.

      If from this corrupt town, I thought I had heard it all and I was outraged.

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        HaluWutsnuHamilton Nolan
        1/13/16 3:14pm

        I work at a fair housing non-profit, and have been working with a member of the zoning board for an affluent, segregated small-midsize city about how to affirmatively further fair housing (read: a HUD catchphrase as mandate that means “desegregate”). There are essentially two cycles at play: 1. Zoning laws in an affluent area change to benefit the poor, who move in. The rich folks and the nice quality of life capitalism dictates should accompany rich folks move out. We’re segregated all over again. 2. You improve the quality of life and housing stock around poorer areas. Gentrification. Poor folks move out. We’re segregated all over again.

        Reply
        <
        • Read More
          DisMyBurnerBaeHamilton Nolan
          1/13/16 2:44pm

          Ham-Bro! I just bought into a nice, formerly walled-off community about 10 years ago. And now you want me to look at Da Poorz again? We want another GATE YO! This is california, the DREAM is a huge fucking gate that provides a false sense of security from the inevitably WaterWarz.

          Nevermind that all of our houses are made out of stucco, sheetrock and plywood, permeable to anyone with a pocket knife and 2 hands. A GIANT BARRED GATE would make me feel safer when I see random homeless people walking through.

          We already have the hood-watch, security cams, and “block sargents”. Why can’t I go full reverse-prison?

          What sane middle aged man wants to actually leave his own home? There aint nothin out there but pox, and dabs.

          Reply
          <
          • Read More
            IskaralPustHamilton Nolan
            1/13/16 2:48pm

            There was a relevant Supreme Court case, Warth v. Seldin, where some people sued because they alleged that zoning practices in a nearby suburb had the intent and effect of excluding racial minorities, whose incomes tended to be lower: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-cou…

            The Seldin Court ultimately threw out the case because the petitioners could not prove they had sustained a sufficient injury to have standing to sue. Petitioners would, according to the Court, need to show that they likely would have been able to purchase housing in the suburb had the zoning rules been different, and that a success in court would thus allow them to purchase such housing. That kind of showing, for many low-income families, is usually impossible. Still, the case did present some pretty interesting questions (most of which it then failed to address). Had the standing issue been resolved differently, the law around exclusionary zoning might look very different today.

            Reply
            <