
Let's Get Organized and Fix Housing Affordability in San Francisco - zt
http://blog.zactownsend.com/lets-get-organized-and-fix-housing-affordability-in-san-francisco/
======
entee
Voting in primaries is the single most important thing anyone can do do
improve the political situation not just in SF but in the country writ large.

As the article states, there's a large majority of the population in favor of
relatively sensible rational policies. And where two sides disagree, there's a
large majority in favor of sensible compromise. Only the most hardcore
partisans and ideologues are intransigent. And yet only the most hardcore
partisans and ideologues vote in primaries. In today's gerrymandered and
politically segregated world, primaries are the only elections that matter in
many places. Solution: everyone should vote in primaries.

TLDR: Vote in primaries or the crazies win.

------
guimarin
This really isn't rocket science or difficult. Everyone thinks this is a hard-
complex problem, it is not. This is a hard simple problem. (easy-hard; simple-
complex)

1\. Upzone SOMA district to 12 stories.

2\. Remove requirement that buildings over 50yrs old in SOMA need to pass the
historic building committee.

~~~
Johnny555
Simple solutions are never simple in real life.

SF has a complicated review process that basically lets neighbors hold up
permit approval indefinitely with appeals. Whether good or bad, it's there.
Shadow laws are also in place and would need to be changed.

Changing a low to mid density neighborhood into a high density 12 story
building neighborhood means a lot more than just removing height limits.
Sufficient parks and retail/commercial space need to exist to ensure good
quality of life, no one wants to live in a neighborhood full of condos &
apartments and little else.

Likewise, there needs to be sufficient transit, SF Muni is already bursting at
the seams, add a high density neighborhood without adding transit, and no one
will be able to get out of the neighborhood.

Building high density housing is important but it's a lot harder than just
removing a height limit.

~~~
sdenton4
Right. That's why the vote needs to be gotten out: If the rules are a problem,
you need to change the rules. We live in a democracy, and there's a process
for that. Get people on the council who want to change the rules and the rules
will change.

~~~
Johnny555
But that assumes that the residents that are voting for the board of
supervisors are the ones that want to change the system.

~~~
sdenton4
Not all, just a plurality! And getting out the vote is exactly how you do
that.

------
jamespitts
Count me in. This will be a long struggle, one which starts with understanding
the difficult territory.

One recent and significant gain in the fight is the notion that the city must
measure the economic impact of underbuilding:

[http://www.vox.com/2016/4/14/11424532/mark-farrel-
housing](http://www.vox.com/2016/4/14/11424532/mark-farrel-housing)

------
Animats
Just in: SF housing prices dropping.[1]

Wait until a few of the big overvalued startups tank (looking at you, Twitter)
and the bubble will be over.

[1] [http://fortune.com/2016/04/15/san-francisco-housing-
prices-d...](http://fortune.com/2016/04/15/san-francisco-housing-prices-drop/)

------
matt_wulfeck
Build the hyper loop between Portland and San Francisco and prices will
plummet.

I bet it would be a lot cheaper than building more houses too!

~~~
calbear81
You wouldn't need to go that far to have a huge impact. High speed rail or
hyper loop between SF and Tracy would open up the Central Valley and its vast
expanses of open land.

------
benzofuran
Why not implement a massive property tax hike for non-owner occupied units -
with exemptions for apartment complexes & other properties designed as
rentals? Something along the lines of 15x the property tax for units not owner
occupied for at least 2/3 of the year / ownership period (if less than a
year).

~~~
dkopi
Tax hikes aren't a way to lower housing costs. You don't make something
cheaper by taxing it.

~~~
benzofuran
If the tax disincentivizes boomers from buying real estate at asinine prices
and then seeking rents to pay the resulting mortgages as an alternative to the
stock market, then that should make property cheaper as it reduces the demand.

~~~
dkopi
In a market with limited supply, taxing homes for rent will raise rents to
cover the additional taxes.

You don't solve a supply problem by adding taxes. If anything, that will
reduce the supply even more.

~~~
Grishnakh
No, you need to massively jack up taxes to increase supply, and it will work.
But you don't jack up taxes on homes for rent, you jack them up on the homes
that _aren 't_ for rent: houses which are just sitting unoccupied. The taxes
will encourage the owners to either rent them out or simply sell them off to
someone who will (or who will at least live there). That increases supply.

------
bdcravens
Start moving high paying jobs elsewhere.

------
tomjacobs
How about we do something about it today? Instead of waiting for new
apartments to be built, we make better use of existing apartments:

[https://medium.com/@TomPJacobs/what-housing-
crisis-3c0568a5d...](https://medium.com/@TomPJacobs/what-housing-
crisis-3c0568a5dd44)

------
roblooman
Here is an IDEA, shipping container housing, infinatley modular and to boot
much cheaper, by almost half to 3 quarters the cost....i have been doing
designs of these type of home for fun and you know what, i love them, not to
mention the fact if i wanted i could pack em up and put them anywhere else,
its not that we should seriously consider the change to the environment of San
fran, for which i am sure there is merit in some cases, but why not make a
location that can conform to your needs and then build how you want to build,
live how you want to live, in a place that welcomes you... food for thought

~~~
davidw
It sounds cool, but it turns out it's probably not a winning idea:
[http://marketurbanism.com/2016/02/02/return-to-sender-
housin...](http://marketurbanism.com/2016/02/02/return-to-sender-housing-
affordability-and-the-shipping-container-non-solution/)

------
HillaryBriss
Building more housing per se is only one of the problems.

A lot of quality of life problems will crop up as density rises. With that
realization, calls for a "grand unified growth plan" and the corresponding
environmental impact studies will surface. And that will take ... t .. i .. m
... e ...

The whole movement hits a wall.

~~~
siculars
Re. "quality of life problems", how about not being able to afford to live in
SF? Does that qualify? If you don't like density or problems that arise due to
density, don't live in dense places. There are plenty of less dense places.

Here's a radical idea: build tall buildings. Tokyo sits on a fault. They
manage to build tall buildings.

~~~
HillaryBriss
Not being able to afford to live in SF is a problem for people who aren't
already comfortably settled there.

Under the current political system, it takes just a handful of the
"comfortably settled" to lever potential quality of life problems and create a
giant obstruction to pro-growth policies.

This is how it goes in other parts of California too.

~~~
Johnny555
Isn't that how it's supposed to work? People that live in a community have the
most weight in deciding policies for that community?

If employers stop coming to SF because of the lack of affordable housing, then
maybe the community will change their minds. Or maybe that's exactly what they
wanted.

~~~
HillaryBriss
If I were to base my answer to that on what I've been hearing over the last
decade from discussions about immigration, free trade, globalization, etc I'd
say something like

"No, how it's supposed to work is that every region must remain open to growth
at all costs and from all sources, especially outside sources. And if there's
a policy such as a zoning policy or a density goal that stands in the way of
outsiders entering a region to settle there and grow the economy, then that
policy is discriminatory and ought to be removed. This applies just as much to
San Francisco as it does to Arizona. Blah blah blah."

But seriously now, where do we draw this line? I have no idea anymore. The
debate has gone in every direction and twisted itself into so many knots I
have no idea when a local government should have control over this and when it
shouldn't.

------
JustSomeNobody
Can we please have a moratorium on San Francisco article submissions?

I really wish it would just slide off into the ocean at this point.

~~~
Johnny555
I think a large percentage of readers here live in the bay area, and there are
lots of strong feelings about housing in SF and the Bay Area in general so
these articles will keep coming.

~~~
davidw
It's undeniably a big issue in many parts of the US - especially the "booming"
ones. Here in Oregon, we're getting tons of 'refugees' from California who, in
turn, drive up prices here.

It's also a huge issue for anyone working for a startup in that area,
especially for those who are no longer young and single and thus require a bit
more in terms of their housing.

------
pessimizer
Leave. You all work on the internet.

The main reason you moved there in the 90s is 1) because it was pretty and
pleasant, and the culture was eccentric and liberal, and 2) because Willie
Brown was unbelievably friendly to rezoning everything to accommodate you at
the expense of the diverse people who used to be able to afford to live there.
Now, astonishingly, the wealthy libertarian line is that the problem is that
they won't let you continue doing it until the place looks like a giant
housing project. SROs that can be slotted in by crane are hailed as a
technological innovation.

[http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/How-S-F-s-live-work-
de...](http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/How-S-F-s-live-work-development-
boom-began-3272818.php)

"Manhattanization" is definitely a good word for it, because Manhattan is a
cultural wasteland where no one interesting can afford to live, where the
wealthy moved in the 80s because it was filled with interesting people.

