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

41–50 of 53 posts

Re: San Francisco supervisors opposing bill to increase housing density

#41

Post by ksec »

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…

A brilliant summary for those not following closely. And then I look at the username to see who wrote this, turns out it was an immediately recognisable Rust and Compiler expert.

Re: San Francisco supervisors opposing bill to increase housing density

#43

Post by eschaton »

drdeadringer wrote: post #15
mc32 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thing is they’re like that guy or gal who is waiting for the “perfect one”. That one is never gonna come. It’s been like this decades. Get something!

In the Bay Area city I live in, there was an empty building on "main street" which remained that way for about 13 years. Every few years a potential new business would file for permission. Nope, no, "not a good fit", "too many of your idea already here", and more endless excuses kept the building empty. Finally, about 1.5 years ago, a business was finally granted permission to move in. About 6 months later, a second…

Lvl Up and AFK aren’t all that similar to businesses already in Campbell though.

The empty bank building was a real eyesore though, especially with its prominence on that end of Campbell Ave. And now that it’s filled, a couple more of the empty storefronts near it look like they won’t be for long either.

Re: San Francisco supervisors opposing bill to increase housing density

#44

Post by caycep »

thebradbain wrote: post #23
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.

Forgive my municipal ignorance but how does one city "annex" another? It's not like they have an army to do it with? Are there legal maneuverings to accomplish this?

Re: San Francisco supervisors opposing bill to increase housing density

#45

Post by sartethought »

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…

>Progressives tend to lean more NIMBY

Take it from a progressive: this is false.

We lean towards stability for low-income populations. An ability to live somewhere, accumulate relationships, and find a stable job, without being thrust into homelessness any moment at the will of enterprise.

Above all else, we support real public housing, maintained by democratic institutions. Our numbers are growing at record rate lately, so if you want to build density, do it like this. Our armies of enthusiasm will be right by your side.

Re: San Francisco supervisors opposing bill to increase housing density

#46

Post by lsiebert »

doublement wrote: post #26
ianmobbs wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah Prop 13 passed when the state was much more republican leaning. Remember both Nixon and Reagan were from California and Schwarzenegger won the governor's race. Arguably the state only went democratic because anti immigrant efforts, particularly prop 187 in 94, pushed moderate latino and asian voters to vote democratic.

Re: San Francisco supervisors opposing bill to increase housing density

#47

Post by khuey »

boulos wrote: post #39
khuey wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The N-Judah runs north of his district, District 7 does have West Portal and Forest Hill stations though and some part of the M-Oceanview route.

I read "parts of inner sunset" and assumed it would include the Judah part but didn't bother to think to look at the map: https://sfgov.org/ccsfgsa/sites/default/files/2000%20Census%... which does seem to show that 7 borders the Judah line (on Judah itself). But to be fair, I'd assumed District 7 went to the park and that it included part of the UCSF area. So he's getting hit by MUNI lines on both sides :).

I had forgotten that District 7 goes that far north in the UCSF area and was thinking it was really just the Twin Peaks/West Portal/Lake Merced areas.

Re: San Francisco supervisors opposing bill to increase housing density

#48

Post by tehlike »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #38
irq11 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I keep coming back to parts of San Francisco are already over 60,000 people per square mile. People talk about more housing and talk zero about infrastructure. Want to pack more people in? Where the fuck are the subways?

People do not talk about zoning without infrastructure. it is implied.

Re: San Francisco supervisors opposing bill to increase housing density

#49

Post by pcwalton »

caycep wrote: post #44
thebradbain wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Forgive my municipal ignorance but how does one city "annex" another? It's not like they have an army to do it with? Are there legal maneuverings to accomplish this?

By asking the state to do it.

Re: San Francisco supervisors opposing bill to increase housing density

#50

Post by t-writescode »

lsiebert wrote: post #46
doublement wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah Prop 13 passed when the state was much more republican leaning. Remember both Nixon and Reagan were from California and Schwarzenegger won the governor's race. Arguably the state only went democratic because anti immigrant efforts, particularly prop 187 in 94, pushed moderate latino and asian voters to vote democratic.

And yet they haven’t undone it, so the majority of the people actually in power must like it
Post reply on HN