In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build
1–10 of 380 posts
Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build
#2I say this as a conservative:
Building limits are systemically classist and racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system.
If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. Remove occupancy laws where they're not about safety. Remove property line setbacks. End parking requirements. End requirements about private kitchens and bathrooms. Outlaw Zoning entirely.
The nation will become more equitable economically when rich people and poor people all share the same zipcodes again. And you can do it with capitalism, you can do it by removing government instead of creating it, you can do it with freedom.
Side bonus: you'll have an economic boom. Construction is an industry that creates real wealth that usually stays in the country.
Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build
#3This is exactly what we need, another SF article. Please tell us more.
Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build
#4I say this as a conservative: Building limits are systemically classist and racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system. If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. Remove occupancy laws where they're not about safety. Remove property line setbacks. End parking requirements. End requirements about private kitchens and bath…
There is infrastructure costs associated with new construction (schools, roads, etc.) Ideally a permit should add ~40k to cover those cost per additional dwelling which scales based on actual costs. Otherwise you keep having people who live in an area pay for new schools, water treatment plants, etc several times.
Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build
#5I say this as a conservative: Building limits are systemically classist and racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system. If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. Remove occupancy laws where they're not about safety. Remove property line setbacks. End parking requirements. End requirements about private kitchens and bath…
There is infrastructure costs associated with new construction (schools, roads, etc.) Ideally a permit should add ~40k to cover those cost per additional dwelling which scales based on actual costs. Otherwise you keep having people who live in an area pay for new schools, water treatment plants, etc several times.
Shouldn't this be covered by property taxes and the additional income tax of the new residents?
Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build
#6I say this as a conservative: Building limits are systemically classist and racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system. If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. Remove occupancy laws where they're not about safety. Remove property line setbacks. End parking requirements. End requirements about private kitchens and bath…
There are permitting processes for a reason. So that we do not have an epidemic of shoddily built houses that fall down or burn down, etc. or, don't end up with a nuclear power plant in the middle of a quite residential street. Granted, some limits are too restrictive and should be removed and/or relaxed. Others should be kept and/or enhanced. Blanket removal of all limits is just as stupid as limits that are too restrictive
Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build
#7I say this as a conservative: Building limits are systemically classist and racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system. If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. Remove occupancy laws where they're not about safety. Remove property line setbacks. End parking requirements. End requirements about private kitchens and bath…
As a 'liberal', I disagree.
It has nothing to do with race, it is economic disparity.
These laws exist, in some extent, to preserve the existing character of the area, for better or worse.
If you want to change these laws, I suggest you get involved (not necessarily to the same extent as Starchild in the article).
What you are suggesting, would lead to a lower quality of life for everyone, rich and poor. It would increase crime and decrease sanitation.
Do you own real property?
Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build
#8Why can't people just move out? Take 1000 people/families and go start your own min SF elsewhere.
Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is infrastructure costs associated with new construction (schools, roads, etc.) Ideally a permit should add ~40k to cover those cost per additional dwelling which scales based on actual costs. Otherwise you keep having people who live in an area pay for new schools, water treatment plants, etc several times.
Shouldn't this be covered by property taxes and the additional income tax of the new residents?
Not all states have income tax, and why should all existing real property owners subsidize the new developer's impact on the existing shared infrastructure?
Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build
#10I say this as a conservative: Building limits are systemically classist and racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system. If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. Remove occupancy laws where they're not about safety. Remove property line setbacks. End parking requirements. End requirements about private kitchens and bath…
There is infrastructure costs associated with new construction (schools, roads, etc.) Ideally a permit should add ~40k to cover those cost per additional dwelling which scales based on actual costs. Otherwise you keep having people who live in an area pay for new schools, water treatment plants, etc several times.
People averse to low income and brown people moving to their nice little town will just weaponize those permit costs to block developers. By putting those infrastructure costs exclusively on the developer, you're basically taxing poverty, because those costs will all have to go on to the new poor residents.
We already have an income tax system, it spreads the burden well. If the city needs more taxes to pay for infrastructure they should raise their local income taxes.