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

Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

grist.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 141 posts

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#111

Post by mahyarm »

khuey wrote: post #100
Retric wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO, there is a reasonable complaint that people who live somewhere for 30 years might be continuously paying for infrastructure that's only needed because more people moved into the area. Basically, when an area needs to build a new school to accommodate new people that cost is split among everyone not just the new people. Then in 10 years when they need another school you pay for it again etc. This results in devel…

Given how the property tax structure in California massively privileges incumbent property owners over newcomers, I'm not very sympathetic to this line of argument. Most Bay Area cities also have rather large development fees.

You are right in this. New people will pay more property tax when purchasing their property, and thus pay a bigger share for the new infrastructure. The people who lived there before hand will be still paying around the rate that they moved in at.

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#112

Post by mahyarm »

rodgerd wrote: post #74
hueving wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'character' is just code for 'I don't want to share' or even worse 'I bought in and if we make more housing, my price won't go up as much'

> 'character' is just code for 'I don't want to share' Nonsense. I don't live in San Fran, I do live in a city whose character has changed. I don't mind that people saw the cool inner city and wanted to share. I do mind that developer put up cheap high-rises with shit sound insulation, and then waged war on music venues, getting most of them shut down. I do mind that rents escalate massively year-on-year so that the…

Rents escalating massively is usually a case of supply controls.

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#113

Post by mahyarm »

simoncion wrote: post #84
musesum wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, I didn't realize there was a 1979 cutoff. Glad to know there's a perk to this oven/icebox victorian.

> Wow, I didn't realize there was a 1979 cutoff. Frankly, it seems that that most folks who speak in public forums (landlords and developers included) don't understand this. It drives me batshit . (No offence intended. :) ) > Glad to know there's a perk to this oven/icebox victorian. From what I've seen and heard about those things, I bet it's just about the only perk, eh? :(

About %70-%80 of the buildings in SF were made before 1979 also. So it's not a very useful metric. Go see whats for sale, most of it was built before 1979. Then go see stories about people trying to build a SFH on a empty lot and being block by neighborhood bullshit for over a decade.

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#114

Post by capkutay »

I really support the ideals of this group, but I can't help but think they're politically doomed. They'll have 'progressive', borderline socialist politicians fighting them on one side and then they'll have elitist, wealthy homeowners fighting them on the other side. Both those groups have the same goal: don't build anything OR if you're going to build something, it will be low density, low income housing purposely planned to make sure there is no new housing supply for market-rate home owners.

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#115

Post by marincounty »

moultano wrote: post #82
megablast wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, all good points. The other side is that they moved into a neighborhood that has a certain number of houses in it, and parks. And they of course want it the same as what they paid for.

I was born into a world with a certain number of people (4.5 billion) and now there are a whole lot more. (7 billion.) I didn't want any more people. Those people are violating my rights. /s

I get what you are saying, but sometimes it's about narrow streets, sewer systems that are at capacity, water mains that are too small, traffic, horrid transportation systems, just towns that weren't built to scale?

Yes, you will find groups of people who don't want new people moving in, or the town they founded spoiled with overbuilding. Bolinas comes to mind. These guys(Basically Hippies) built houses out here when no one realized just how beautiful a small community can be, and just how beautiful it is out there. They designed their little town with only a certain number of water hookups. They were upfront about their desires--they didn't want developement, nor other people. It essentiall stopped all building. As a young man who wanted to build out there, I thought it was unfair; but I can also see the wisdom in what they did. It's just a complex problem.

I am sympathetic to people who need housing. I actully belive in rent control. I just don't have a answer.

On a slightly different note, I belive we need to end homelessness yesterday. Every town should be required to have an area where people can camp. It doesn't need to be fancy. Just a place where a person can pitch a tent, without getting a ticket, or killed. There can be porta potties, and mobile wash stations. Cops can patrol the camp sites if needed. I don't think everyone will want to live in these primitive campsites. If that became a problem, you could require proof of previous residency.

Got off track--sorry.

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#116

Post by Recoveringhobo »

As a former resident of Lafayette, I'm glad that someone is taking action against the NIMBYs but BARF is out of line here.

The picture BARF paints of what happened is not entirely accurate. The city did not deny the developer from developing the land. After years of public planning meetings the owner of the land decided to work with the city after overwhelming public opposition against the development.

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#117

Post by simoncion »

mahyarm wrote: post #113
simoncion wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wow, I didn't realize there was a 1979 cutoff. Frankly, it seems that that most folks who speak in public forums (landlords and developers included) don't understand this. It drives me batshit . (No offence intended. :) ) > Glad to know there's a perk to this oven/icebox victorian. From what I've seen and heard about those things, I bet it's just about the only perk, eh? :(

About %70-%80 of the buildings in SF were made before 1979 also. So it's not a very useful metric. Go see whats for sale, most of it was built before 1979. Then go see stories about people trying to build a SFH on a empty lot and being block by neighborhood bullshit for over a decade.

> ...go see stories about people trying to build a SFH on a empty lot and being block by neighborhood bullshit...

True. AIUI, it has been incredibly difficult to get anything new built in the city for a wide variety of reasons for a very long time.

However, I bring up the limits of rent stabilization because I often see people saying:

"More people would build in San Francisco if it wasn't for that damned Rent Control in the city."

or

"Rent Control is why noone builds in San Francisco."

It turns out that -not infrequently-, many of these folks don't understand that rent stabilization doesn't cover new construction. [0]

I hope that once one discovers that rent stabilization doesn't prevent a developer from building a new building full of 1000sf (or smaller!) units that -currently- rent for ~3k/month, and can be adjusted to "market rate" at any time the lease between the landlord and tenant permits, one starts digging around to discover more about the especially fucked up process of getting new construction approved in this town.

[0] Except when specially negotiated, as mentioned in my previous comment.

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#118

Post by apendleton »

eggy wrote: post #110
apendleton wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're talking like this is a free-market situation. It's not, because supply is being artificially constrained below what the market could naturally and profitably support, by overregulation of new construction. We don't take too kindly to all of the holders of oil, gas, water, or food conspiring to restrict its availability to drive prices up either.

I agree, it is hard to talk of free-market solutions when there are so many government restrictions and regulations already in place. You can't make more houses if there is not enough area on a give plot, unless you build up, which is not easy to do safely, and inexpensively in a seismic zone. I was born and raised in Brooklyn, and lived in Manhattan later. I had no problem seeking a life outside of NYC when I couldn…

These are factors, but what's discussed in the article is not regulation due to safety, but regulation due to existing homeowners in the neighborhood not wanting their property values to go down as a result of the increased supply. That's just brazen market manipulation via control of the city government. Cities should have a role in making sure construction is safe. They shouldn't, in my opinion, have one in protecting the financial assets of incumbent homeowners.

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#119

Post by tsotha »

joelwilliamson wrote: post #99
Retric wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO, there is a reasonable complaint that people who live somewhere for 30 years might be continuously paying for infrastructure that's only needed because more people moved into the area. Basically, when an area needs to build a new school to accommodate new people that cost is split among everyone not just the new people. Then in 10 years when they need another school you pay for it again etc. This results in devel…

Are there no development fees in the US? In Canada, municipalities will levy fees on developers to pay for all the new infrastructure. In some cities, this also helps keep taxes low for other residents by paying for operating costs as well.

We have those in California. New houses are generally built in "Mello Roos" districts, in which bonds are issued to cover things like new schools, streets, and sewers. Homeowners in those districts pay extra property taxes, which in theory go toward retiring the bonds.

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#120

Post by hueving »

vasilipupkin wrote: post #52
hueving wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'character' is just code for 'I don't want to share' or even worse 'I bought in and if we make more housing, my price won't go up as much'

No, that's not correct. Character is what the neighborhood looks like, visually. Some people like to live on quiet tree lined streets not in a Manhattan like neighborhood. Immediately assuming they are racist is ridiculous

>Some people like to live on quiet tree lined streets not in a Manhattan

A.k.a they don't want to share.

Post reply on HN