San Francisco adds 68K new jobs - and only 120 new housing units

[bgwah]

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Bay-Area-tech-boom-not-cause-of-region-s-problems-5080195.php

With all this hype about "income inequality" and "affordability," the obvious solution that could help millions of people in places like the Bay Area (massive upzoning) escapes us.

[traininthedistance]

F**k those f**king NIMBYs and upzone.  Seriously.

[DC Al Fine]

A good example of why latte liberalism is so annoying in my book.

[King]

An argument could be made that San Francisco being restrictive benefits the rest of the area economically by forcing money out of the city.

[traininthedistance]

An argument could be made that San Francisco being restrictive benefits the rest of the area economically by forcing money out of the city.

But the entire Bay Area is that restrictive.  You're forcing people to go live out in Stockton and spend their entire lives in wasteful, rage-inducing traffic jams, and that helps nobody.

Also if the SF region (which, let's be real here, means both the city and its suburbs) were able to add sufficient housing, that would be a tremendous welfare boost for both the region and the country: more prosperity would flow to the residents, rather than just being clawed back in insane real estate prices; it would be more realistic from people in depressed regions to move to SF for opportunity, increasing their own welfare (and possibly welfare back home b/c of reduced competition for jobs); and that's without getting into the myriad environmental and quality of life benefits to urban living that are being denied because the supply of such living is so scandalously low.

So many benefits are being left on the table, all in the name of either an irrational aversion to change, or a selfish, self-defeating grab at the real estate jackpot, or sentimental ignorance, or the like.  There's just no real upside to the current regime at all.

[bgwah]

A good example of why latte liberalism is so annoying in my book.

That might be the first correct usage of the term "latte liberal" in recent forum history. Congratulations!

And while they are definitely a big factor (read about affordable housing in neighboring Marin County (link), the far-left's unreasonable fees and taxes on new development, irrational hatred of "evil" developers, rent control, and anti-landlord laws are big factors as well. There are over 10,000 empty rentals in San Francisco due to landlords concluding it's not worth the hassle (link).

An argument could be made that San Francisco being restrictive benefits the rest of the area economically by forcing money out of the city.

Yeah, as train already mentioned, this is a regional thing.

The difficult part is that this has been going on for decades now. Even if the market were allowed to correct, it would take a long time to undo the damage.

In defense of SF, they do have around 4K units under construction (obviously filling an empty office building takes less time than construction a new apartment building from scratch (link).

[Sbane]

An argument could be made that San Francisco being restrictive benefits the rest of the area economically by forcing money out of the city.

A lot of these jobs are already outside SF though. The shuttles the group was protesting actually brings the workers who live in the city to their jobs in Silicon Valley. And it's not as if there is affordable housing within a reasonable distance from SF or the silicon valley. Yes, it benefits other cities but those cities have sky high real estate prices as well. Sure, Tracy might be benefitted but forcing people to commute 3 hours everyday is not a good idea.

[President Tyrion]

Yeah, it's not just SF, but the entire Bay Area.

In San Francisco, for example, there is huge opposition for literally any project you propose over a couple stories tall. On the Embarcadero, there was a proposal for a new set of apartments, but I believe it got NIMBY'd down.

[Sbane]

Yeah, it's not just SF, but the entire Bay Area.

In San Francisco, for example, there is huge opposition for literally any project you propose over a couple stories tall. On the Embarcadero, there was a proposal for a new set of apartments, but I believe it got NIMBY'd down.

And this happens across the political spectrum from liberal SF and Marin out to the  conservative(relatively) outer east bay cities like Pleasanton. Gotta save the ridge yo!

[DC Al Fine]

A good example of why latte liberalism is so annoying in my book.

That might be the first correct usage of the term "latte liberal" in recent forum history. Congratulations!

And while they are definitely a big factor (read about affordable housing in neighboring Marin County (link), the far-left's unreasonable fees and taxes on new development, irrational hatred of "evil" developers, rent control, and anti-landlord laws are big factors as well. There are over 10,000 empty rentals in San Francisco due to landlords concluding it's not worth the hassle (link).

*Takes a bow*

I read the articles. Since all my domestic policy boils down to encouraging people to settle down and have babies, this is incredibly disturbing. Surely there ought to be a GOP talking point in there if they're seeking to win Hispanic votes.

[Associate Justice PiT]

A good example of why latte liberalism is so annoying in my book.

That might be the first correct usage of the term "latte liberal" in recent forum history. Congratulations!

And while they are definitely a big factor (read about affordable housing in neighboring Marin County (link), the far-left's unreasonable fees and taxes on new development, irrational hatred of "evil" developers, rent control, and anti-landlord laws are big factors as well. There are over 10,000 empty rentals in San Francisco due to landlords concluding it's not worth the hassle (link).

*Takes a bow*

I read the articles. Since all my domestic policy boils down to encouraging people to settle down and have babies, this is incredibly disturbing. Surely there ought to be a GOP talking point in there if they're seeking to win Hispanic votes.

     What is the GOP going to concern themselves with here? It's a waste of time for them to even bother, really.

[DC Al Fine]

A good example of why latte liberalism is so annoying in my book.

That might be the first correct usage of the term "latte liberal" in recent forum history. Congratulations!

And while they are definitely a big factor (read about affordable housing in neighboring Marin County (link), the far-left's unreasonable fees and taxes on new development, irrational hatred of "evil" developers, rent control, and anti-landlord laws are big factors as well. There are over 10,000 empty rentals in San Francisco due to landlords concluding it's not worth the hassle (link).

*Takes a bow*

I read the articles. Since all my domestic policy boils down to encouraging people to settle down and have babies, this is incredibly disturbing. Surely there ought to be a GOP talking point in there if they're seeking to win Hispanic votes.

     What is the GOP going to concern themselves with here? It's a waste of time for them to even bother, really.

Something about cheaper housing/"liberals don't care about you. It was more an idle thought than anything else.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A good example of why latte liberalism is so annoying in my book.

That might be the first correct usage of the term "latte liberal" in recent forum history. Congratulations!

And while they are definitely a big factor (read about affordable housing in neighboring Marin County (link), the far-left's unreasonable fees and taxes on new development, irrational hatred of "evil" developers, rent control, and anti-landlord laws are big factors as well. There are over 10,000 empty rentals in San Francisco due to landlords concluding it's not worth the hassle (link).

*Takes a bow*

I read the articles. Since all my domestic policy boils down to encouraging people to settle down and have babies, this is incredibly disturbing. Surely there ought to be a GOP talking point in there if they're seeking to win Hispanic votes.

     What is the GOP going to concern themselves with here? It's a waste of time for them to even bother, really.

Something about cheaper housing/"liberals don't care about you. It was more an idle thought than anything else.

The problem is of course that cheaper housing for these people goes against current Republican sensibilities too, even if for different reasons. There is a lot that is very anti-traditional and anti-family about the currently dominant strands of right-wing thought on these issues.

[Хahar 🤔]

A good example of why latte liberalism is so annoying in my book.

That might be the first correct usage of the term "latte liberal" in recent forum history. Congratulations!

And while they are definitely a big factor (read about affordable housing in neighboring Marin County (link), the far-left's unreasonable fees and taxes on new development, irrational hatred of "evil" developers, rent control, and anti-landlord laws are big factors as well. There are over 10,000 empty rentals in San Francisco due to landlords concluding it's not worth the hassle (link).

*Takes a bow*

I read the articles. Since all my domestic policy boils down to encouraging people to settle down and have babies, this is incredibly disturbing. Surely there ought to be a GOP talking point in there if they're seeking to win Hispanic votes.

     What is the GOP going to concern themselves with here? It's a waste of time for them to even bother, really.

In any case, it's a local issue, and local elections in the Bay Area don't have Republican candidates.

[traininthedistance]

In any case, it's a local issue, and local elections in the Bay Area don't have Republican candidates.

A "local issue" with national repercussions.

As an aside, this issue is in fact a prime example- in fact, probably the prime example- of why I consider myself more of a social liberal rather than a social democrat.  What you have here is a case of regulations in the sphere of "preservation" and "tenant's rights" that are meant to ensure stability and protect the vulnerable lower classes- but which, in fact, actually increase inequality and unaffordability, make things drastically worse for the less-well-off, and basically generally just hand a windfall (or, arguably, just the appearance of a windfall) to a lucky few incumbent renters and property owners while utterly f**king over newcomers and outsiders.  It really is a case where deregulation would be the egalitarian, welfare-maximizing move.

[bedstuy]

In any case, it's a local issue, and local elections in the Bay Area don't have Republican candidates.

A "local issue" with national repercussions.

As an aside, this issue is in fact a prime example- in fact, probably the prime example- of why I consider myself more of a social liberal rather than a social democrat.  What you have here is a case of regulations in the sphere of "preservation" and "tenant's rights" that are meant to ensure stability and protect the vulnerable lower classes- but which, in fact, actually increase inequality and unaffordability, make things drastically worse for the less-well-off, and basically generally just hand a windfall (or, arguably, just the appearance of a windfall) to a lucky few incumbent renters and property owners while utterly f**king over newcomers and outsiders.  It really is a case where deregulation would be the egalitarian, welfare-maximizing move.

Maybe there's a place for some Federal legislation on this issue.  What if the Federal government found a way to require that states meet certain future planning goals to keep pace with population growth?  You could have regional compacts where municipalities would have to take on a certain share of the growth.  I would also like to see nationwide goals to have a certain percentage of growth in walkable, transit-rich zones.  I think that would be a good thing to pursue.

[Franknburger]

In any case, it's a local issue, and local elections in the Bay Area don't have Republican candidates.

A "local issue" with national repercussions.

As an aside, this issue is in fact a prime example- in fact, probably the prime example- of why I consider myself more of a social liberal rather than a social democrat.  What you have here is a case of regulations in the sphere of "preservation" and "tenant's rights" that are meant to ensure stability and protect the vulnerable lower classes- but which, in fact, actually increase inequality and unaffordability, make things drastically worse for the less-well-off, and basically generally just hand a windfall (or, arguably, just the appearance of a windfall) to a lucky few incumbent renters and property owners while utterly f**king over newcomers and outsiders.  It really is a case where deregulation would be the egalitarian, welfare-maximizing move.

Maybe there's a place for some Federal legislation on this issue.  What if the Federal government found a way to require that states meet certain future planning goals to keep pace with population growth?  You could have regional compacts where municipalities would have to take on a certain share of the growth.  I would also like to see nationwide goals to have a certain percentage of growth in walkable, transit-rich zones.  I think that would be a good thing to pursue.

Let's not forget that new housing may have adverse ecological effects. Hillside development may increase erosion and flooding risks. If higher housing blocks wind paths, smog risk may increase substantially (there has been quite some research on the Frankfurt/Main area, where 1970s housing estates have blocked air circulation from the Taunus mountains to its north). In the case of SF, I think earthquake risks deserve serious consideration as well. also as concerns traffic/ evacuation / fire-fighting etc.

A neo-liberal approach that just focuses on facilitating new housing development would at best socialise external costs (drainage/ flood protection etc.), at worst make a city ultimately less inhabitable.  What is needed is intelligent city development, with a focus on conversion (especially of underutilised old industrial and commercial areas). A lot of the pressure furthermore results from increasing living area per person. One of the problems in Germany (and possibly also in the US) is that land taxes don't reflect the scarcity and pressure. If, via land tax levied onto the tenants, people were penalised for occupying 100 m² or more of housing space with just one person, a lot of the housing pressure might be alleviated.

The way US metros are laid out across municipality, county and even state borders, I hardly see how a practicable standardised Federal regulation can be developed. 

[President Tyrion]

The issue is that metropolitan areas are borne of necessity, not planning. China is the only country that really has an opportunity to urbanize population in a controlled manner, and they're completely whiffing. They're doing the urbanization, but not so much the controlled planning. Or rather, the planning fails to meet the "western" ideas of what they would mean.

I don't pretend to be any sort of expert on city planning, but it's not hard to see that there needs to be a way to change the manner by which we consider these problems. Things like tax increment financing need to go to the wayside, in my opinion. Though the concept itself is fine, the practicality of it is that municipalities tend to be extremely bullish on their future prospects, while essentially using a plan that requires inflation to stay near 0%, which is foolhardy.

[traininthedistance]

Let's not forget that new housing may have adverse ecological effects. Hillside development may increase erosion and flooding risks. If higher housing blocks wind paths, smog risk may increase substantially (there has been quite some research on the Frankfurt/Main area, where 1970s housing estates have blocked air circulation from the Taunus mountains to its north). In the case of SF, I think earthquake risks deserve serious consideration as well. also as concerns traffic/ evacuation / fire-fighting etc.

Pushing necessary new housing out into greenfield development hours away (or into sprawl in metro areas with laxer regulations) has infinitely more adverse ecological effects than would upzoning major commercial corridors in a built-out city to allow, say, six-to-ten-story development rather than a three-story max.  SF is, really, not that dense at all.

I'm not taking about building on pristine hillsides... I'm talking about building taller and smarter in areas that are already settled- and not even skyscraper tall either (though it wouldn't kill them to have a few condo towers downtown).

[Linus Van Pelt]

Regarding the issue of federal legislation, a municipality can have federal funds cut off if it is found to have exclusionary zoning in violation of the Fair Housing Act. At least as actually enforced in practice, the requirements are limited enough that they would never cause trouble for a city with as much density and rental housing as San Francisco. Westchester County, however, has been in threatened a federal enforcement action in recent years on just this issue. The backlash against the federal affordable-housing mandate has been a main source of support for Republican county executive Rob Astorino.

[Хahar 🤔]

In any case, it's a local issue, and local elections in the Bay Area don't have Republican candidates.

A "local issue" with national repercussions.

I'm certainly aware of the repercussions, but the people dealing with it are local officials. Even if the California Republican Party desired to make political headway with this (which I seriously doubt, since it only matters to urban voters), it would have no way of doing so.

[Simfan34]

I imagine that there could be an effect on state-wide elections, though.

More of this nonsensical rhetoric:



vhttp://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/leveling-sf-housing-field-could-take-100000-new-units/Content?oid=2703869

The city will always be expensive, but the obvious solution to a housing shortage... is to build more houses.

[Хahar 🤔]

I imagine that there could be an effect on state-wide elections, though.

What effect would it have? Whose vote would be affected and how?