Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco's Fog Over Growth

bloombergview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 103 posts

Re: San Francisco's Fog Over Growth

#91

Post by jacobolus »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #5
Retric wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If every house around you is turned into a high-rise then your property values are going to shoot up massively. So, cash out and move. The real question is why can 1x people living in an area decide that 99x people get to move there or not. In the end Mixed use walkable communities are much better for both peoples health and the environment. You can always move to the middle of Montana if you don't want to live near…

Low-rise San Francisco is very pleasant, probably the most pleasant place I could imagine living. It's quite walkable and quiet in the right places. And in a place like that you can know your neighbors. Ironically, people live more segmented lives the higher buildings get. I also understand why people would want to maintain the quality of life they had when they purchased their house, even if it is at the expense of…

Most of SF is not low-rise buildings, but 1–2 story single family houses.

Re-zoning SF to allow low-rise buildings throughout could increase density by something like 3–5x.

Re: San Francisco's Fog Over Growth

#92

Post by DrScump »

scurvy wrote: post #25
crzwdjk wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, property tax law in California does the exact opposite. The tax can't be higher than 1% of the assessed value of the house, and that assessment can't go up by more than 2% every year as long as the house isn't sold. So the people who have been living in the neighborhood the longest and complain the most about "neighborhood character" also pay much less property tax than their neighbors. And by "much le…

The tax rate can also be passed down to your heirs upon your death. It also covers commercial buildings. What was originally sold as "don't tax grandma out" is obviously a power move to create a land holding elite. I'm a property owner, but I don't really like the system. I also don't like how mismanaged the property taxes here are, but that's another thread.

"The tax rate can also be passed down to your heirs upon your death."

So can rent-controlled rents, believe it or not.

Re: San Francisco's Fog Over Growth

#93

Post by DrScump »

e40 wrote: post #37
CrowFly wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite. There are "parcel taxes" too that keep going up. And 2%/year increase isn't inconsequential.

Parcel tax increases are voted on so they aren't just random increases. And I think they need 2/3 to pass.

But parcel taxes are added by popular vote of city/district residents, so they almost always pass.

Re: San Francisco's Fog Over Growth

#94

Post by DrScump »

mtviewdave wrote: post #16
geebee wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an excellent point. I live in an R1 neighborhood, but a buddy of mine lives in a SFH in an R2. He would technically be allowed to convert his SFH into two 3bd/2ba apartments, he could sell one of them, and profit so much that he would cover his entire mortgage with lots left over. While he'd still face permit challenges, this has been done (legally, with all required permits) on his block. However, this remain…

>This is why I think that SF's opposition to new development isn't really driven by property owners who wish to maximize the dollar value of their asset. I think it's rooted more in a very preservation minded populace [...] and a deep suspicion of redevelopment projects that they worry will tear out the soul of a community and replace it with something corporate and soulless (plenty of that has happened). Even worse…

"And here in Mountain View, over the last few years the voters have become increasingly pro-housing"

MV is at least as NIMBY as other areas. A few years ago, "preservationists" fought a planned Home Depot at 85 & El Camino out of claimed noise and traffic fears (the lot is literally right next to the freeway). It was forced to the ballot and defeated, resulting in hundreds of thousands of dollars in local sales tax share going elsewhere.

A residential care facility went in there instead. The subsequent reduction in commercial traffic there resulted in the supermarket next door also closing.

Re: San Francisco's Fog Over Growth

#95

Post by DrScump »

0xffff2 wrote: post #60
pfooti wrote: post #58

Legit thought experiment and not a troll, because I'm curious about thinking through this. What happens if legislation is passed that more or less prevents people from owning property that's not their primary residence? Like: if you don't live in it more than 190 days a year, you pay a really high property tax on it. I've always thought a big part of the landlord - tenant issues around rent control, fair market housi…

Have you ever bought a house? I have. I do not want to go through that process every time I move. Plus, while I have purchased a house before, it ended up being foreclosed on and I certainly couldn't get a mortgage now (and I shouldn't... I can't afford a mortgage). I would be pretty SOL if owning a house was a prerequisite for not being homeless. How is commercial property treated? What prevents a company building a…

[What prevents a company building a huge apartment building, "selling" it to an apartment manager (in the form of a very expensive mortgage) and then having the apartment manager rent out "rooms" in his very large "house" to cover his mortgage?]

The law. (Zoning)

Re: San Francisco's Fog Over Growth

#96

Post by erispoe »

crzwdjk wrote: post #9
tptacek wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are expected to care about preserving their neighborhoods. But the concerns of existing residents can't possibly be dispositive.

In a democracy, they end up being so, because those are the people who get to vote. One solution is to move some of the planning functions one level up in the government, so people in the Central Valley also get a say in deciding whether SF's zoning is reasonable or not. This is basically what Japan does.

San Francisco is largely made up of renters (63%) and planning decisions are made by the City of San Francisco, not individual neighborhoods. The problem you describe exists in small communities where the neighborhood is de facto a jurisdiction. Like Brisbane, right south of SF. In San Francisco, NIMBY homeowner are actually a minority playing against the interests of the majority of the citizens of this city.

Now there are several causes for this. A major one is concentrated harm vs distributed benefits for specific development. A new development in a residential neighborhood is gonna piss off a small number of people and motivate them to organize to put pressure on the planning commission. This development would benefit pretty much everyone else, but in a way that is so distributed that it's really hard to motivate people to fight for it. A new development is gonna have a very concentrated impact on neighbors and a very diluted effect on the rest of the city.

Re: San Francisco's Fog Over Growth

#97

Post by mtviewdave »

DrScump wrote: post #94
mtviewdave wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is why I think that SF's opposition to new development isn't really driven by property owners who wish to maximize the dollar value of their asset. I think it's rooted more in a very preservation minded populace [...] and a deep suspicion of redevelopment projects that they worry will tear out the soul of a community and replace it with something corporate and soulless (plenty of that has happened). Even worse…

"And here in Mountain View, over the last few years the voters have become increasingly pro-housing" MV is at least as NIMBY as other areas. A few years ago, "preservationists" fought a planned Home Depot at 85 & El Camino out of claimed noise and traffic fears (the lot is literally right next to the freeway). It was forced to the ballot and defeated, resulting in hundreds of thousands of dollars in local sales tax s…

I was here for that vote, and "preservation" was not an issue. The lot in question had been unoccupied for about 20 years at that point. People were eager to have it replaced with something useful.

>It was forced to the ballot and defeated

Home Depot voluntary withdrew their application for a zoning variance before it ever received a hearing with the City, and then filed the ballot initiative instead. This unwillingness to even try to work with the city council was seen by voters as arrogance, and led to the measure's defeat.

>A residential care facility went in there instead.

Actually, a (large) medical center went there:

http://www.pamf.org/mountainview/

>The subsequent reduction in commercial traffic there...

Note that since the lot had been unoccupied prior, the construction of the medical center led to an increase, not decrease, in commercial traffic.

>...resulted in the supermarket next door also closing.

The ballot measure was defeated on March 5, 2002. The supermarket closed on November 8, 2014. It seems unlikely the two events are connected.

This level of inaccuracy when arguing against "NIMBYism" is unfortunately common here in Mountain View. Indeed, I've seen worse. Which is why I encourage to people to understand historical context and try to engage with people they think of as NIMBYs rather than just dismiss them out of hand. Even in San Francisco.

Re: San Francisco's Fog Over Growth

#98

Post by DrScump »

mtviewdave wrote: post #97
DrScump wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"And here in Mountain View, over the last few years the voters have become increasingly pro-housing" MV is at least as NIMBY as other areas. A few years ago, "preservationists" fought a planned Home Depot at 85 & El Camino out of claimed noise and traffic fears (the lot is literally right next to the freeway). It was forced to the ballot and defeated, resulting in hundreds of thousands of dollars in local sales tax s…

I was here for that vote, and "preservation" was not an issue. The lot in question had been unoccupied for about 20 years at that point. People were eager to have it replaced with something useful. >It was forced to the ballot and defeated Home Depot voluntary withdrew their application for a zoning variance before it ever received a hearing with the City, and then filed the ballot initiative instead. This unwillingn…

1) "residential care" is my error; I was thinking of the care facility two blocks down, where Cherry Chase Bowl was.

Now regarding the "this level of inaccuracy" snark:

2) "large medical center" is an odd term for a place with neither emergency nor urgent care. And it itself is not commercial traffic given that no (taxable) commerce goes on there.

3) the Lucky supermarket closed in 2014, not the Albertsons that was there in the 2000s.

4) you ignore that there were two different Home Depot proposals (a full store and, later, an Express), at least one of which won Planning Commission approval.

5) "The lot in question had been unoccupied for about 20 years at that point." No, the lot was never unoccupied -- the Emporium building remained into the 2000s. I lived a block away until 1995.

Re: San Francisco's Fog Over Growth

#99

Post by CrowFly »

DrScump wrote: post #93
e40 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parcel tax increases are voted on so they aren't just random increases. And I think they need 2/3 to pass.

But parcel taxes are added by popular vote of city/district residents , so they almost always pass.

Right. And don't forget -- Senior Citizens exempt themselves from parcel taxes and renters don't usually see these reflected in rent increases. So you have a majority with little to lose by voting to tax "other" people.

I'm always amazed how the techno-libertarians on yc-hews go full communist when it comes to Prop 13 and the right to own property! And exempting seniors from this taking has a racist element--keep the existing white people from being taxed, but tax the younger people who are moving in.

Re: San Francisco's Fog Over Growth

#100

Post by geebee »

Kalium wrote: post #65
mtviewdave wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is why I think that SF's opposition to new development isn't really driven by property owners who wish to maximize the dollar value of their asset. I think it's rooted more in a very preservation minded populace [...] and a deep suspicion of redevelopment projects that they worry will tear out the soul of a community and replace it with something corporate and soulless (plenty of that has happened). Even worse…

How do you propose dealing with NIMBYs who refuse to be reassured?

One approach is lawsuits.

http://missionlocal.org/2015/12/sf-group-renews-call-to-sue-...

Post reply on HN