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

51–60 of 141 posts

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

#51

Post by 0xcde4c3db »

brudgers wrote: post #40
ChuckMcM wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was coming to say the same thing. I think this is a good question to ask of the folks who object to building homes, "What if the people who lived in this town before you moved here had blocked the building of the home you are living in?" You wouldn't have had that wonderful experience you are trying to preserve because you would never have lived here." It is very sobering.

In general [1], people who hate developers and/or development live, work, shop, and worship in places developed by developers. Someone subdivided and sold the land. The infrastructure of deeds, insurance and mortgages that makes the contemporary housing markets possible exists because development has and continues to take place. [1]: In the United States.

In my experience (albeit not SFBA), people tend to support development in the abstract while loathing any specific development that is currently ongoing or proposed in their own cities. It might have something to do with the sausagemaking aspects of getting municipal approval and the back-and-forth about who pays for which infrastructure upgrades.

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

#52

Post by vasilipupkin »

hueving wrote: post #32
vasilipupkin wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not irrational to be opposed to density. Racism aside, density changes the character of the neighborhood and potentially lowers property values of existing homeowners. So, it's not surprising people are apprehensive

'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

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

#53

Post by spiralpolitik »

Good luck to her. Although unless you also fix the Bay Area transport infrastructure then building more housing in the suburbs isn't going to solve anything. BART is already at capacity, Buses are constrained by the lack of bus lanes on the major freeway interchanges leading to the bridges. Congestion inside the city is choking things.

So yes we need more housing, but that is merely the first step.

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

#54

Post by branchless »

fche wrote: post #17
musesum wrote: post #4

Here's Scott Wiener's post about meeting 2040 housing growth plans: https://medium.com/@Scott_Wiener/want-to-know-why-the-bay-ar... Looks like East bay is falling behind schedule. Here's housing prices since crash peek: http://west.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/hugolefebvre-ch... I live several doors down from the old KFC. I miss the old Sugoi Sushi that was there - but am fine with the new construction. Am lucky…

"Am lucky to have rent control." You are (party to) using the state to withhold justly earned economic value from your landlord.

Please try thinking more holistically.

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

#55

Post by epistasis »

spiralpolitik wrote: post #53

Good luck to her. Although unless you also fix the Bay Area transport infrastructure then building more housing in the suburbs isn't going to solve anything. BART is already at capacity, Buses are constrained by the lack of bus lanes on the major freeway interchanges leading to the bridges. Congestion inside the city is choking things. So yes we need more housing, but that is merely the first step.

I think that those that are proposing more development would heartily welcome simultaneously expanding the infrastructure.

Those who oppose such infrastructure improvements typically oppose them because they want to stop growth entirely.

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

#56

Post by SonjaKT »

gavazzy wrote: post #12

Is she suggesting that land be taken through eminent domain? Or is she merely suggesting that developers who own land should be allowed to build on it? Their DSP proposal is so clouded by the political language that it is difficult to determine their true intentions. Also, I'm quite troubled by their suggestion that tearing down homes is morally equivalent to not building them in the first place. Tearing down homes i…

What words in the article suggested eminent domain to you?

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

#57

Post by simoncion »

zyxley wrote: post #8
musesum wrote: post #4

Here's Scott Wiener's post about meeting 2040 housing growth plans: https://medium.com/@Scott_Wiener/want-to-know-why-the-bay-ar... Looks like East bay is falling behind schedule. Here's housing prices since crash peek: http://west.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/hugolefebvre-ch... I live several doors down from the old KFC. I miss the old Sugoi Sushi that was there - but am fine with the new construction. Am lucky…

> Am lucky to have rent control. Right now, if I move away, I wouldn't be able to afford moving back. SF-style widepsread rent control seems like part of the problem to me, in the sense that it hides the true extent of market distortions from many people living in the area (especially the demographics most likely to vote), while incentivizing weird and unethical behavior to circumvent it by developers who could proba…

> ...rent control seems like part of the problem to me, in the sense that it hides the true extent of market distortions from many people living in the area...

musesum mentions:

> Am lucky to have rent control. Right now, if I move away, I wouldn't be able to afford moving back.

Everyone I speak to in my building [0] is very aware of the current ludicrously high rents in the city and how it limits their ability to keep a slumlord in line. I can't imagine the situation is substantially different in any other rent-controlled building in the city.

Also, be aware that SF's rent-control is more correctly termed rent-stabilization. Vacated units can have their rent set to any rate. Stabilization only kicks in once that unit is occupied.

> ...while incentivizing weird and unethical behavior to circumvent it by developers who could probably be nudged...

I honestly don't know what you're talking about here. Were you aware that rent control in SF doesn't apply to new construction [1]; only to housing built or occupied before June 13, 1979? [2]

If you were aware of that, would you be so kind as to tell me what you are referring to? :)

[0] Including the old lady who is afflicted with alzheimer's.

[1] Unless -as happened with Sangiacomo's Trinity Place on Market street- a special arrangement is reached to destroy existing rent-controlled units, but have a 1:1 replacement in the new construction.

[2] https://www.sftu.org/rentcontrol/#Rent_Control_Coverage

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

#58

Post by Retric »

brudgers wrote: post #40
ChuckMcM wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was coming to say the same thing. I think this is a good question to ask of the folks who object to building homes, "What if the people who lived in this town before you moved here had blocked the building of the home you are living in?" You wouldn't have had that wonderful experience you are trying to preserve because you would never have lived here." It is very sobering.

In general [1], people who hate developers and/or development live, work, shop, and worship in places developed by developers. Someone subdivided and sold the land. The infrastructure of deeds, insurance and mortgages that makes the contemporary housing markets possible exists because development has and continues to take place. [1]: In the United States.

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 developers being able to pawn off the majority of infrastructure costs.

Currently, areas often use zoning to try and limit growth, but that just means whoever get's to build new property get's to pocket the difference which opens the way to graft etc. IMO, the reasonable solution to that problem is simply to tax people who build new property a share of the existing infrastructure costs. (Note: Bonds seem like a way to side step this, but your still splitting the costs with everyone not just immigrants.)

Of course there is also NIMBY issues where people don't want change. But, that's a separate issue.

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

#60

Post by sampo »

gozo wrote: post #41
ChuckMcM wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was coming to say the same thing. I think this is a good question to ask of the folks who object to building homes, "What if the people who lived in this town before you moved here had blocked the building of the home you are living in?" You wouldn't have had that wonderful experience you are trying to preserve because you would never have lived here." It is very sobering.

I think people are quite aware of that line of thinking. Most people who live in slightly unpopular areas live there because they couldn't afford other places and now when the area has become more desirable they fear being pushed out. This is an especially legitimate concern if you are renting, since building might very well rise demand more than it does supply.

So they live in an old, bad quality building in a relatively good location. And they oppose replacing the old bad buildings with modern, well build buildings, because then they could not afford them anymore?
Post reply on HN