Gavin Newsom draws line on SF street behavior: City now ‘too permissive’

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,667
29,342
146
It's also the place that attracts the homeless because let's face it, it's easier to find food and some shelter in a city than sitting on the Great Plains or heading for the hills.

Absolutely. It is also a very large metro area where, when you can't find shelter, the climate is generally agreeable to living outside for most of the year compared to others.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Most of those locations are in Democrat areas. Im Going to assume that's what pcgeek was going to mention. Not that it matters. I know the homeless flick to areas where the weather is more consistent. Minnesota being very cold in the winter is less appealing than Seattle or San Diego. That's why coastal cities are more popular for the homeless. It's just a coincidence that they are also blue areas.

Large cities are blue because GOP ideology is incompetent to govern them.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,472
5,221
136
I think you didn’t understand the point as my point is definitely correct. You’re referring to the fact that in some cases it might not be cost efficient for developers to build but that’s entirely different than my point of the simple fact that increasing the quantity of housing in an area makes housing cheaper for people to purchase. More houses = lower rents = fewer homeless.

More importantly, in all of the areas being discussed in this thread the objections you bring up are nowhere close to being the case. Developers would LOVE to build all over San Francisco, New York, etc, but NIMBYism, affordable housing mandates, historical district nonsense, zoning, etc, are what prevent projects from being started.
Sorry, I totally missed your point.
I completely disagree with the concept of unregulated construction, zoning is an absolute necessity in every city.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,322
48,588
136
Sorry, I totally missed your point.
I completely disagree with the concept of unregulated construction, zoning is an absolute necessity in every city.

I don’t disagree with the concept of zoning, I just think it has been taken way too far and has now become a way to enrich incumbent property owners.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,356
33,747
136
As practiced in the Bay Area zoning is by far a tool for exclusion rather than an implementation of rational land use policy.

Some people in Cupertino opposing a redevelopment finally came out and flatly said they don't want apartments because it might bring in the poors. Poors in this case being anybody who didn't buy before the 90s or isn't making mid six figures household income to be able to pay off said homeowners. Most of these communities have virtually gated themselves with zoning.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,472
5,221
136
I don’t disagree with the concept of zoning, I just think it has been taken way too far and has now become a way to enrich incumbent property owners.
While that's possible, it's never been my experience.
Zoning is all about keeping different uses separate, and controlling density to match infrastructure. Yes, some of it is about protecting peoples investment in their homes, but that's valid, and necessary. I don't want a foundry next door, I don't want a high rise apartment building at the end of my street. Both of those would adversely affect my life and the value of my property, for no better reason than to enrich someone else.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,356
33,747
136
While that's possible, it's never been my experience.
Zoning is all about keeping different uses separate, and controlling density to match infrastructure. Yes, some of it is about protecting peoples investment in their homes, but that's valid, and necessary. I don't want a foundry next door, I don't want a high rise apartment building at the end of my street. Both of those would adversely affect my life and the value of my property, for no better reason than to enrich someone else.

Literally proved his point here.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
Ironic how in some of the most liberal/tolerant cities many of the tech billionaire so-called liberals show they are no different than poor-hating conservatives when it's their pockets that may be taxed to help the homeless.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lauren...on-c-homelessness-san-francisco/#66d49d233877

Tech Billionaires Benioff, Dorsey Square Off Over How To Deal With Homelessness

https://www.racked.com/2018/6/12/17454480/seattle-tax-amazon-starbucks

How “Bullying” Amazon Killed a Seattle Tax Meant to Help the Homeless
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,472
5,221
136
Literally proved his point here.
I agree. But what spy see's as a hindrance to increased density, I see as a necessary protection against rampant development. I don't want as many people as can possibly fit in my city. I don't want roads so congested as to be impassable. I don't want sewer systems that are overwhelmed every time it rains. I don't want a blackout every time a million people turn on their AC.
If you want a high density city, build one. Design it from the ground up to support whatever population density you like. But two features it will absolutely have are zoning regulations and building codes.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,322
48,588
136
While that's possible, it's never been my experience.
Zoning is all about keeping different uses separate, and controlling density to match infrastructure. Yes, some of it is about protecting peoples investment in their homes, but that's valid, and necessary. I don't want a foundry next door, I don't want a high rise apartment building at the end of my street. Both of those would adversely affect my life and the value of my property, for no better reason than to enrich someone else.

Zoning is almost exclusively used now to enrich incumbent homeowners. A high rise may adversely affect the value of your property but that’s actually the point - to lower housing values and costs. When housing is scarce the price goes up and that’s exactly what’s happened in the rich coastal cities. This is bad for the city as a whole as it inhibits growth and particularly bad for low income people. So no, protecting the value of people’s housing investment should not in any way be the goal of zoning. City housing policy is about supplying housing, not making people money on real estate speculation.

This is why states are now stepping in to override local zoning laws, they have gotten wildly out of control and it’s leading to housing crises all over the country.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,322
48,588
136
I agree. But what spy see's as a hindrance to increased density, I see as a necessary protection against rampant development. I don't want as many people as can possibly fit in my city. I don't want roads so congested as to be impassable. I don't want sewer systems that are overwhelmed every time it rains. I don't want a blackout every time a million people turn on their AC.
If you want a high density city, build one. Design it from the ground up to support whatever population density you like. But two features it will absolutely have are zoning regulations and building codes.

No high density city in the country was built from the ground up to be high density. More dense construction leads to more tax revenues to improve infrastructure. It’s a wonderful virtuous cycle.

Like I said if you want to prohibit denser housing that’s your business but you should be aware of the harm you are inflicting on others.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I object to the notion that more conventional housing will somehow alleviate homelessness. Here in Metro Denver, particularly Denver proper, apartment construction is intense. Formerly open areas & low density areas have been & still are being built up relentlessly, often w/ little regard to issues like parking. That's particularly true anywhere along the Light Rail alignment. We've actually lost population (slightly) yet rents remain sky high. The Denver skyline has been significantly altered as a result.

None of which does jack shit for the homeless. Why? Because they have no jobs & no money. Hell- it's actually hard on them because they don't have the nooks & crannies of the city where they once camped. We still have the fading luxury of close in under utilized ground for projects like this-

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2018/...s-a-tiny-house-village-to-combat-homelessness

It's a drop in the bucket so far, but it's a start.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,472
5,221
136
No high density city in the country was built from the ground up to be high density. More dense construction leads to more tax revenues to improve infrastructure. It’s a wonderful virtuous cycle.

Like I said if you want to prohibit denser housing that’s your business but you should be aware of the harm you are inflicting on others.
Except it never works out that way. The money is almost never used for infrastructure. California has sixty billion dollars worth of deferred maintenance on the books. We've had two or three gas tax increases to fund those projects, and the money ends up being diverted to the general fund. Infrastructure is ignored until it fails, then it becomes an emergency. Parts of the SF sewer system are over a hundred years old, and it's by and large ignored until it fails and swallows a few homes.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,322
48,588
136
I object to the notion that more conventional housing will somehow alleviate homelessness. Here in Metro Denver, particularly Denver proper, apartment construction is intense. Formerly open areas & low density areas have been & still are being built up relentlessly, often w/ little regard to issues like parking. That's particularly true anywhere along the Light Rail alignment. We've actually lost population (slightly) yet rents remain sky high. The Denver skyline has been significantly altered as a result.

None of which does jack shit for the homeless. Why? Because they have no jobs & no money. Hell- it's actually hard on them because they don't have the nooks & crannies of the city where they once camped. We still have the fading luxury of close in under utilized ground for projects like this-

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2018/...s-a-tiny-house-village-to-combat-homelessness

It's a drop in the bucket so far, but it's a start.

Have you considered how the housed originally become homeless? It’s usually because they can’t afford their rent.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,322
48,588
136
Except it never works out that way. The money is almost never used for infrastructure. California has sixty billion dollars worth of deferred maintenance on the books. We've had two or three gas tax increases to fund those projects, and the money ends up being diverted to the general fund. Infrastructure is ignored until it fails, then it becomes an emergency. Parts of the SF sewer system are over a hundred years old, and it's by and large ignored until it fails and swallows a few homes.

So if it never works that way then how did denser cities than yours come to exist? I mean come on, that’s a facially wrong statement.

The best bill California has had in years is the one that works to take away zoning authority from local communities.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Have you considered how the housed originally become homeless? It’s usually because they can’t afford their rent.

I didn't say otherwise. I merely point out that intense apartment building here in Denver hasn't dented the homeless population. Dunno about elsewhere, but Denver's homeless are a very diverse group. None of them get that way with the money in their pockets to re-establish residency w/o a lot of help from other people. It's a chosen lifestyle only for a minority.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,356
33,747
136
I didn't say otherwise. I merely point out that intense apartment building here in Denver hasn't dented the homeless population. Dunno about elsewhere, but Denver's homeless are a very diverse group. None of them get that way with the money in their pockets to re-establish residency w/o a lot of help from other people. It's a chosen lifestyle only for a minority.

Based on what I've seen Denver has lagged significantly in housing production to accommodate it's growth util very recently. There may seem to be construction everywhere now but it's lagged the actual need.

Also to your previous post there should be high density housing near transit. It's simply the best place for it. That a lot of places spend millions or billions to build out new transportation infrastructure without increasing density near stations is horrible planning.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Based on what I've seen Denver has lagged significantly in housing production to accommodate it's growth util very recently. There may seem to be construction everywhere now but it's lagged the actual need.

Also to your previous post there should be high density housing near transit. It's simply the best place for it. That a lot of places spend millions or billions to build out new transportation infrastructure without increasing density near stations is horrible planning.

I'm all for high density near transit stations. Never said otherwise.

There's been lots of building all along, just at the higher end & often in the 'burbs. Low income housing obviously hasn't been an honest priority for builders, anyway, & won't be, either. When they can build for upscale tenants that's what will happen.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,356
33,747
136
I'm all for high density near transit stations. Never said otherwise.

There's been lots of building all along, just at the higher end & often in the 'burbs. Low income housing obviously hasn't been an honest priority for builders, anyway, & won't be, either. When they can build for upscale tenants that's what will happen.

Low income housing isn't built unless it's a matter of policy. However as new supply comes online older properties can remain more affordable. There are really two related issues IMO, the issue of affordability for households making median incomes and the issue of low income/homeless housing. The first can definitely be helped by a bunch of construction but the latter requires some kind of subsidy program.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Low income housing isn't built unless it's a matter of policy. However as new supply comes online older properties can remain more affordable. There are really two related issues IMO, the issue of affordability for households making median incomes and the issue of low income/homeless housing. The first can definitely be helped by a bunch of construction but the latter requires some kind of subsidy program.

Big landlord jack up the rent on existing properties every chance they get, every time the lease expires. Only when units stay vacant do they back down. Units they rented profitably at half the price ten years ago make them money hand over fist & they won't let the goodness of their hearts interfere with that. Because they don't have any, because it's all done through investment groups like Hannity's.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,322
48,588
136
Big landlord jack up the rent on existing properties every chance they get, every time the lease expires. Only when units stay vacant do they back down. Units they rented profitably at half the price ten years ago make them money hand over fist & they won't let the goodness of their hearts interfere with that. Because they don't have any, because it's all done through investment groups like Hannity's.

If they aren’t competively priced they will stay vacant. The competitive price is based on supply and demand.

Build more houses and the rent goes down. It’s as simple as that. Build as many as you think necessary and then double that number to make up for past under building.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,356
33,747
136
Big landlord jack up the rent on existing properties every chance they get, every time the lease expires. Only when units stay vacant do they back down. Units they rented profitably at half the price ten years ago make them money hand over fist & they won't let the goodness of their hearts interfere with that. Because they don't have any, because it's all done through investment groups like Hannity's.

If supply has not caught up with demand yes older properties can still raise rents. This is the foundation of the argument to allow more housing to be built, a whole lot more.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,322
48,588
136
If supply has not caught up with demand yes older properties can still raise rents. This is the foundation of the argument to allow more housing to be built, a whole lot more.

I genuinely don’t understand the argument that if you build more luxury housing that it won’t lower rents elsewhere. Of course new housing is for wealthier people, that’s who buy new houses. The houses they move out of can then be occupied by less wealthy people.

NIMBYism is one of the few places where the left and the right somehow unite in total stupidity that betrays their core beliefs: liberals engage in housing policy that screws over poor people. Conservatives embrace heavy handed government regulation. I suspect it’s because no one really holds those beliefs very closely when it conflicts with their self interest of running up their own property value.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,356
33,747
136
NIMBYism is one of the few places where the left and the right somehow unite in total stupidity that betrays their core beliefs: liberals engage in housing policy that screws over poor people. Conservatives embrace heavy handed government regulation. I suspect it’s because no one really holds those beliefs very closely when it conflicts with their self interest of running up their own property value.

Most people hate change and will do anything to protect/increase their own property value. Seemingly a consideration well above political ideology for a lot of folks.

I am happy to live in a place that hasn't, yet, gone totally insane on housing policy. One upside of the last crash is the near total absence of large condo projects which usually become infested with obstructive cranks. Give me dozens more rental towers any day of the week.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,322
48,588
136
Most people hate change and will do anything to protect/increase their own property value. Seemingly a consideration well above political ideology for a lot of folks.

I am happy to live in a place that hasn't, yet, gone totally insane on housing policy. One upside of the last crash is the near total absence of large condo projects which usually become infested with obstructive cranks. Give me dozens more rental towers any day of the week.

Yes, I agree. It’s a dislike of change and personal financial benefit that is the core of NIMBYism. It’s still a relatively recent thing though, the idea that your neighborhood should not change or that your local government should hurt the community at large to prop up your property values was unheard of until maybe the 1970s or so.

The idea that the neighborhood you bought a house in should never change is a ludicrous idea. It’s the selfishness that infects everything from the baby boomer era.