
Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs - apsec112
http://grist.org/cities/urban-activists-set-out-to-sue-san-franciscos-suburbs/
======
jinushaun
Love this quote:

“Most people would be very uncomfortable tearing down 315 houses. But they
don’t have a similar objection to never building them in the first place, even
though I feel they’re morally equivalent. Those people show up anyway. They
get born anyway. They get a job in the area anyway. What do they do? They live
in an overcrowded situation, they pay too much rent, they have a commute
that’s too long. Or maybe they outbid someone else, and someone else is
displaced.”

“It’s easy to see the problem when you’re tearing down someone’s home. But
when you’re not building, it’s hard to see whose home it is.”

~~~
ChuckMcM
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.

~~~
x0x0
I live in an sf suburb. I talk to local homeowners in the dog park at night
and they're all wildly opposed to density, often with a nice core of racism
too (I'm white so white people say some wild shit to me; you hear references
to "those people" and it's not that deeply coded.) The only thing that cheers
me about all the nimbys where I live is all their kids are getting kicked out.
Seriously. In 20 years when their kids want a house, it will cost $2.5mm on
the low end to own a home here. There will be a tiny handful of careers that
pay the necessary wages.

~~~
vasilipupkin
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

~~~
hueving
'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'

~~~
rodgerd
> 'character' is just code for 'I don't want to share'

Nonsense. I don't live in San Fran, I do live in a city whose character has
changed. I don't mind that people saw the cool inner city and wanted to share.
I _do_ mind that developer put up cheap high-rises with shit sound insulation,
and then waged war on music venues, getting most of them shut down. I _do_
mind that rents escalate massively year-on-year so that the hitherto broad
range of inhabitants have steadily whittled down to a richer and richer (and
frankly less interesting) rump. I do mind that many landlords would apparently
rather see an empty shopfront than an interesting store that's no longer
viable because apparently the thing to do is year-on-year 30% rent rises.

~~~
mahyarm
Rents escalating massively is usually a case of supply controls.

------
mc32
I hope she wins. I hope other people see her insight. I have not seen this
kind of attitude against development in other countries. Sure, some
speculators will make out on some locations near transit,and some will lose
out a bit. Who cares, what we need are more units, in SF, down the Camino
corridor from SF to san Jose. Build up, have BART go all the way down the el
cam, and have local Surface-bahns. I'm tired of the homeowning middle class as
well as the poor (or more accurately, those advocating in the name of the
poor) for being so utterly against development.

It's time for change. I'd welcome a housing glut, it'll benefit most, but
those who see real estate as investment for retirement.

In the end, I think people will discover that mid density isn't so bad after
all. You get convenience, but you lose some of your feeling of living in an
enclave.

From communist china to capitalist Korea, when housing is in short supply,
buildings go up.

~~~
wahsd
What you don't see to realize is that what you describe will be only a
momentary and fleeing improvement. The problem is the irrational and
unnecessary concentration of opportunities in that area.

So you build more buildings, create a housing glut even ... so now even more
people move to the area because it's the only place where opportunities exist
because it's where the wealthy sprinkle crumbs to their pest scurrying
underfoot. All the sudden housing doubles from what it was before the glut and
maybe you make 80% more, but all the asset owners are really the only ones who
benefit and the wealth concentration cycle simply continues to distort.

What really needs to happen is that the whole area and other urban areas with
similar concentrations need to be cut off from things like government funding,
any tax advantages, etc. and put those and additional support into areas all
around the country. That's really the only way that the cycle is broken,
because what you are experiencing is a systemic cycle that no remedial action
will have any kid of even mid term impact on without changing the system.

~~~
bsder
> The problem is the irrational and unnecessary concentration of opportunities
> in that area.

The concentration is not irrational. _That 's_ the problem.

The concentration is driven by the fact that you _will_ , not might, get laid
off at some point if your job is in the tech sector. So, what happens is that
everybody thinks about where their _next_ job is going to be while getting
hired for their current job.

If I somehow manage to land, say, a VLSI layout job in Pittsburgh, PA, there
is no point in going there as when I get laid off, there is no _other_ VLSI
layout job. So, I'll have to go back to Silicon Valley. So, why should I leave
Silicon Valley in the first place?

You might think that, okay, Pittsburgh is a problem, but what about Austin?
Oddly, same issue. A hardware company wiped out most of its Austin site, set
off a big scramble and those people couldn't land jobs because there are no
other ones there (people think of Austin as tech--but it's not really hardware
tech). I know lots of people who got hired in the "Big Data Analytics" startup
fad who are now figuring out that they basically signed onto "Actuarial
Science"\--but, if they have a family, they really have nowhere else to go.
The single ones are either changing fields (becoming a chef seems to be
popular--go figure) or going to Silicon Valley.

Whereas, in Silicon Valley, you turn right at the last light instead of left,
and you're at your new job.

~~~
hugh4
Trouble is that San Francisco is a terrible place, geographically, for a large
and ever-expanding industry. It's a tiny sliver of land on the end of a
peninsula. There's only three roads out of town and no room to expand. Austin
is much more suitable, it's surrounded by nothing on all sides.

Sooner or later the global hub of the computer industry has to shift away from
San Francisco to somewhere there's actually some goddamn space. That time is
now, as evidenced by the ridiculous prices, which are pushing people out. This
is a good and natural stage of the process.

The only question is whether we destroy one of the few genuinely pleasant
cities in North America trying to hold on for another decade.

Sigh. It seems that every time I say something counter-circlejerklical, I take
a karma hit which prevents me from posting for hours. "You're submitting too
fast. Please slow down."

~~~
sampo
> _Trouble is that San Francisco is a terrible place, geographically, for a
> large and ever-expanding industry._

So a bit like Hong Kong, Singapore, or Manhattan?

~~~
philsnow
I like to link to this photo [0] when this discussion comes up. I don't think
SF will ever look like this, unfortunately.

[0] [http://7-themes.com/data_images/out/69/7008405-hong-kong-
sky...](http://7-themes.com/data_images/out/69/7008405-hong-kong-skyline-
view.jpg)

------
musesum
Here's Scott Wiener's post about meeting 2040 housing growth plans:
[https://medium.com/@Scott_Wiener/want-to-know-why-the-bay-
ar...](https://medium.com/@Scott_Wiener/want-to-know-why-the-bay-area-has-a-
housing-crisis-read-this-map-b4d7a56d12f1)

Looks like East bay is falling behind schedule.

Here's housing prices since crash
peek:[http://west.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/hugolefebvre-
ch...](http://west.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/hugolefebvre-
changeinhousingprice.jpg)

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

~~~
fche
"Am lucky to have rent control."

You are (party to) using the state to withhold justly earned economic value
from your landlord.

~~~
cbd1984
> You are (party to) using the state to withhold justly earned economic value
> from your landlord.

The state is what allows a landlord to be a landlord in the first place, by
making a society stable enough that property ownership is a matter of laws and
contracts as opposed to guns and groups with guns.

~~~
hugh4
Sure, the state is what allows you to be alive at all, because without it
you'd probably have been killed by or enslaved by roving Mad Max style
marauders.

Therefore you owe your life to the State and they can demand anything at all
from you and you shouldn't complain. Right?

~~~
Apocryphon
Welcome to the social contract

~~~
Turing_Machine
You (and others on this thread, on both sides) are pretending that there's no
gradation between "roving bands of cannibal looters" (the "Mad Max" scenario)
and "Tyrannical government controls every single aspect of your daily life"
(the "1984" scenario), when in fact there is a _very large_ amount of space
between those two scenarios.

That is a fundamentally dishonest argument.

There are honest discussions of exactly where the boundaries on government
power should lie, but this isn't one of them.

------
naveen99
Sonia's AMA on reddit
[https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/34urng/im_son...](https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/34urng/im_sonja_trauss_founder_of_sfbarf_i_fight_for_the/)

------
teen
Ha, the first SFBARF meeting was actually held in my apartment, when Sonja was
still not sure if it was something people were interested in. Crazy to see how
much it grew.

~~~
raldi
Cool! When was that?

~~~
teen
I think around last August : )

------
SonjaKT
Guess what - suethesuburbs is applying for Y Combinator for non-profits.
Sooo....... get ready

~~~
SonjaKT
Who down voted this? Why?

------
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.

~~~
epistasis
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.

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

Hear, hear!

I would _heartily_ welcome infrastructure improvement programs that brought
the state of the SFBA's public transit within shooting distance of the quality
of public transit in and around NYC.

I would _happily_ have my personal not-really-that-much-higher-than-Alabama
tax burden increased to help pay for such a program.

------
gavazzy
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
immediately destroys value; hundreds of thousands of dollars are put into a
home with the expectation that at least part of it can be recovered after a
sale. A government that destroys homes without taking into account this
investment destroys the value that the developers put into it. On the other
hand, having the homes not be built in the first place does no such thing.

~~~
erispoe
Tearing down homes doesn't necessarily destroy value. It increases the value
of other properties, because you have less supply and more demand. This is
exactly the equivalent of not building while demand goes balistic. The price
of homes has gone crazy in the Bay Area as a result of not allowing enough
building.

You don't need eminent domain, and SFBARF is not advocating for it. The
project they are suing the City of Lafayette for was entirely private: willing
landowner, willing developer, and most likely a lot of potential buyers or
renters in a tense market. But no, the City of Lafayette decided to approve on
condition of a drastically reduced number of housing.

She is advocating that landowners and developers be allowed to build to meet
market demand, without obstruction from nimby neighbors.

------
lindenksv1
On "why can't those people move to___?" [https://medium.com/b-copy-com-
longform-content/why-can-t-tho...](https://medium.com/b-copy-com-longform-
content/why-can-t-those-people-move-to-be7f70e8ff91)

------
johnwatson11218
In my opinion this is one of the worst aspects of the bay area and california
in general. It is my understanding that it is very easy to get land set aside
for environmental reason in california and that is used to stop development.
Then I read about minimum lot sizes in places like San Jose and locals getting
together to block new construction. I think that San Francisco should look
like Tokyo at this point with high density sprawl that takes an hour to cross
on a bullet train. Keep in mind they get earthquakes over there as well. I
know it is unlikely but this is the kind of thing that I could see causing a
"Detroit Type" situation to emerge with US tech. Other countries figure out
the software thing and we get hit with global competition that we can not
respond to quickly enough. Rather than pointing our fingers at the autoworker
unions we will point it at the nimby types that kept San Fran from reaching
its full potential.

------
capkutay
I really support the ideals of this group, but I can't help but think they're
politically doomed. They'll have 'progressive', borderline socialist
politicians fighting them on one side and then they'll have elitist, wealthy
homeowners fighting them on the other side. Both those groups have the same
goal: don't build anything OR if you're going to build something, it will be
low density, low income housing purposely planned to make sure there is no new
housing supply for market-rate home owners.

------
Recoveringhobo
As a former resident of Lafayette, I'm glad that someone is taking action
against the NIMBYs but BARF is out of line here.

The picture BARF paints of what happened is not entirely accurate. The city
did not deny the developer from developing the land. After years of public
planning meetings the owner of the land decided to work with the city after
overwhelming public opposition against the development.

~~~
SonjaKT
The argument is that the city "approved the project conditional on lower
density." Which is in violation of the HAA. Here's more info about it:
[http://www.trauss.com/HAA_Lafayette.pdf](http://www.trauss.com/HAA_Lafayette.pdf)
pg 6 is where the Lafayette thing starts.

What do you think would have happened if instead of relenting, the developer
had gone forward with the 315 unit version? Do you think it would have been
approved?

------
7Figures2Commas
It's disappointing that this type of activism is only gaining traction in
places like the Bay Area. For years, I pushed for more affordable housing in
Aspen, but nobody listened even though I was willing to walk 1.7 miles to get
to the nearest lift.

~~~
hugh4
I've been pushing for more affordable housing at Buckingham Palace. It sucks
that there's only one house there and the Queen isn't selling.

And what's with the lack of affordable housing in Yellowstone National Park?
There's loads of room for condos!

------
rajacombinator
Just too many burnt out brainless hippies/commies in California.

------
hugh4
Handy hint for people who want to live in the Bay Area and can't afford to:
tough cookies. Have you considered living somewhere else?

I'd like to live on a private island in the Whitsundays, but there aren't
enough to go around. It has never occurred to me to whine about this fact.

~~~
7Figures2Commas
We have a meetup group that gets together at 6:00 pm on the second Tuesday of
every month at The Creamery in which members lament their inability to afford
private islands, jets, etc. You're welcome to join us on the 13th and vent
over a latte.

It's not all sadness though. I believe a representative from the local
Maserati dealership will be there this week to tell us about a special lease
deal available to well-qualified lessees.

