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

San Francisco supervisors opposing bill to increase housing density

sfexaminer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 53 posts

Re: San Francisco supervisors opposing bill to increase housing density

#21

Post by unlinked_dll »

codyb wrote: post #16
jgalt212 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because the supervisors are just acting in the short term best interest of property owners. limit supply and prices will go up. they're all on the take.

Aren’t those the people that make up their communities?

What percentage of single family homes in SF are owned by single families, and what percentage of single families own a single home?

Because if the answer isn’t 100% to both those questions, then “property owners” are not strictly the community’s constituents.

Re: San Francisco supervisors opposing bill to increase housing density

#22

Post by Retric »

boulos wrote: post #13

Sigh, this kind of thinking is some sort of variant of broken-window syndrome: > But Board President Norman Yee said San Francisco should be exempted altogether from Wiener’s proposal. > He said that SB 50 “does not take into account the nuances and intended impacts that comes up upzoning entire neighborhoods” and he noted that there are large developments planned in the district he represents. > "We’re actually buil…

The problem is not housing it’s the ratio of commercial to residential development. Ban new commercial development and you kill job growth and thus the ever growing demand for new housing. That’s not going to fly, but clearly it’s all about the ratio not the absolute numbers.

PS: Well not kill, companies would end up packing more people into the same space up to a point.

Re: San Francisco supervisors opposing bill to increase housing density

#23

Post by thebradbain »

pcwalton wrote: post #20

To understand this, you need to realize that San Francisco politics is a perpetual no-holds-barred fight between two factions within the local Democratic Party: the "Moderates" and the "Progressives" (although the Progs also contain some members of other parties, like the Greens and the DSA). The Progs hate the Mods with a burning passion and are constantly trying to undercut them. Generally, Moderates tend to win ci…

That instance of Jane Kim threatening to annex Brisbane came off more as “everyone ELSE should build more housing so we don’t have to” than anything else to me, personally.

They’re not wrong that other cities also need to build more housing, too, but SF equally needs to. They’re the city, not the suburb.

Re: San Francisco supervisors opposing bill to increase housing density

#24

Post by ianmobbs »

pcwalton wrote: post #20

To understand this, you need to realize that San Francisco politics is a perpetual no-holds-barred fight between two factions within the local Democratic Party: the "Moderates" and the "Progressives" (although the Progs also contain some members of other parties, like the Greens and the DSA). The Progs hate the Mods with a burning passion and are constantly trying to undercut them. Generally, Moderates tend to win ci…

Being progressive and being a NIMBY aren’t compatible ideologies.

Re: San Francisco supervisors opposing bill to increase housing density

#25

Post by unlinked_dll »

ianmobbs wrote: post #24
pcwalton wrote: post #20

To understand this, you need to realize that San Francisco politics is a perpetual no-holds-barred fight between two factions within the local Democratic Party: the "Moderates" and the "Progressives" (although the Progs also contain some members of other parties, like the Greens and the DSA). The Progs hate the Mods with a burning passion and are constantly trying to undercut them. Generally, Moderates tend to win ci…

Being progressive and being a NIMBY aren’t compatible ideologies.

Thank god people act rationally when it comes to their professed ideology

Re: San Francisco supervisors opposing bill to increase housing density

#26

Post by doublement »

ianmobbs wrote: post #24
pcwalton wrote: post #20

To understand this, you need to realize that San Francisco politics is a perpetual no-holds-barred fight between two factions within the local Democratic Party: the "Moderates" and the "Progressives" (although the Progs also contain some members of other parties, like the Greens and the DSA). The Progs hate the Mods with a burning passion and are constantly trying to undercut them. Generally, Moderates tend to win ci…

Being progressive and being a NIMBY aren’t compatible ideologies.

When it comes to big-money issues like housing, self-interest takes precedence over professed ideology. Ostensibly liberal California not only has rampant NIMBYism, but is also in contention for the most regressive property tax policies on Earth via Proposition 13.

Re: San Francisco supervisors opposing bill to increase housing density

#27

Post by boulos »

Retric wrote: post #22
boulos wrote: post #13

Sigh, this kind of thinking is some sort of variant of broken-window syndrome: > But Board President Norman Yee said San Francisco should be exempted altogether from Wiener’s proposal. > He said that SB 50 “does not take into account the nuances and intended impacts that comes up upzoning entire neighborhoods” and he noted that there are large developments planned in the district he represents. > "We’re actually buil…

The problem is not housing it’s the ratio of commercial to residential development. Ban new commercial development and you kill job growth and thus the ever growing demand for new housing. That’s not going to fly, but clearly it’s all about the ratio not the absolute numbers. PS: Well not kill, companies would end up packing more people into the same space up to a point.

Right, it’s all about the ratio. A group of us pointed this out to the planning commission in relation to the Central Soma Plan. It called for something like 32k new jobs and only 8k housing units (and IIRC, nothing about transit other than claiming through magic that existing muni, Bart and Caltrain service would suffice).

I’ve since moved out of Soma, as the commissioners and supervisors made it clear that while they understood the problem, they also didn’t have anywhere else to plop down tens of thousands of jobs.

Re: San Francisco supervisors opposing bill to increase housing density

#29

Post by tehlike »

jgalt212 wrote: post #4
tehlike wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting to have all these startups improving efficiency and all, but then have a government doing exact opposite.

because the supervisors are just acting in the short term best interest of property owners. limit supply and prices will go up. they're all on the take.

Allow denser zoning, then land value increases much more!

Re: San Francisco supervisors opposing bill to increase housing density

#30

Post by tehlike »

irq11 wrote: post #18
jgalt212 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because the supervisors are just acting in the short term best interest of property owners. limit supply and prices will go up. they're all on the take.

This is such a sophomoric take on a complicated issue. Speaking as a long-time renter who is now a property owner, I almost never think about things in terms of “limiting supply”, and as far as I can tell, my neighbors don’t either. They do care a lot about things that you’d expect a non-cartoon-villian to care about: neighborhood quality, schools, access to daylight, preservation of views, congestion, etc. While I’m…

You are right. I own a property, and I wouldn't probably like crowding in my neighborhood. But despite the fact that I don't like it, I would vote in favor of denser zoning.
Post reply on HN