131–140 of 228 posts
What's to stop a landlord from turning a floor in his apartment building into a chicken battery farm now?
Also, given prevailing rents that would likely lose them money over renting it out, though you can certainly regulate your way into that being the best option if you "protect" renters enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, more homeless will appear It's not like they magically respawn or something. There are people who have studied the root cause of homelessness, and: it's housing. Sure, other factors make things worse, but there's more homelessness where housing is expensive. Which stands to reason: when a thing is expensive, fewer people can afford it. https://homelessnesshousingproblem.com/ That's why, ultimately, the biggest…
They really do re-spawn if being homeless now means being given a nice, new, clean place to live. Why wouldn’t they?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Living in a city where laundromats (even moderately large professional ones) are nowhere near residential areas is, to say it briefly, stupid. You want them right near your home so you can drop by any time. Nobody wants to go 45 minutes out of their way just to drop off some clothes.
I'm not making a case for or against, but instead saying this is a matter of perspective based on who's making the judgement call.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Living in a city where laundromats (even moderately large professional ones) are nowhere near residential areas is, to say it briefly, stupid. You want them right near your home so you can drop by any time. Nobody wants to go 45 minutes out of their way just to drop off some clothes.
I think all the people who have washers and dryers in their own homes would disagree that having a laundromat on their street would be a value add. It would just bring traffic from outside of their neighborhood into it. I'm not making a case for or against, but instead saying this is a matter of perspective based on who's making the judgement call.
Those people can choose to live in the woods away from society if that’s a problem. The vast majority of people like having things they need within a few minutes of their home—particularly people who aren’t in HOA-governed cookie cutter suburbs.
Zoning laws broadly are probably still in effect, right? I doubt you could build something industrial in residential zones. It's just the bad parts of zoning that are disabled, if I understood the article correctly. Excellent development in any case. Hope a lot of good dense housing gets built.
Residential-only zoning is "the bad kind of zoning". It wasn't invented to keep factories away from homes; it was /literally/ invented in Berkeley to stop Chinese immigrants from being able to afford homes by running laundry businesses out of them.
I wish I could mind-meld with you and transmit the memories and experiences of growing up in a residential area with no zoning.
You know that sci-fi trope where the empath gets the memory dump and breaks away screaming and crying because they can't handle the trauma that comes through ?
It would be like that.
You think you'll get cute shops and pop-ups and delightful mixed-use and stimulating workshop spaces and crafty folks doing things artisanally.
What you will actually get is half-built cars. Everywhere. You will get mobile homes and immobile RVs. You will get horses. Not rich-people horses, but "Grandma died and she had a horse and nobody knew what to do with it so we fenced part of the front yard" horses. Someone will disconnect from city sewer because they "know how to build septic". Someone will get llamas.
You think I'm making this up and I promise you I am not.
You've lived so long in a nicely regulated, rules-based order that you have no idea the kind of bullshit people engage in the minute the rules go away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Groundwater? It all goes in the same sewer, and the water you drink comes from the same tap. What does it matter if it's 5 miles away or next door, when we don't locally source water or dispose of waste locally? Large centralized industries are probably going to be more efficient than small ones, but maybe not accounting for customer travel related pollution. There's air pollution, of course, but few people want to b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They really do re-spawn if being homeless now means being given a nice, new, clean place to live. Why wouldn’t they?
Do you really think people with housing would become homeless in hopes of getting a new place?
If free, safe lodging is available without restrictions, demand will quickly outstrip supply with folks moving from other cities (LA, Seattle, Portland, etc) to fill the available rooms. It's a $50 bus ticket, city officials will likely fund these tickets for them to get to SF to take advantage of this. SF had programs for this exact thing to get homeless out of SF [1]
1 - https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvg7ba/instead-of-helping-ho...
> The builder’s remedy says that noncompliant cities must allow housing at any density and any height, anywhere in the city, as long as at least 20% of the new homes are affordable. https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/builde... For most places in the Bay Area, is there an existing affordability percentage requirement? How much of an increase is this? I'm not a development/construction insider, but a…
20% IZ is usually a show-stopper when combined with height and FAR limits but the idea is that there must be some point in the solution space that works with 20% IZ. San Francisco has IZ set at between 20 and 33% depending on the project and this is widely seen as a blanket anti-development policy.
Now it could be doable with a lot of that red tape is gone.