> "Do we really want to set a precedent where the state government comes in and overrides local regulations about things like zoning which are usually purely the responsibility of the local governments?"
Yes, yes we do. Local control of land use is the reason we are in this mess. Local control of land use is the reason why our neighborhoods are still de facto segregated by race even though de jure segregation ended 50 years ago. Local control constricts the policy influencers to a circle that is too small, because it exlcudes from the discourse people who: 1) work in the locale in question, but cannot afford to live there, 2) people who commute through the locale in question, 3) people who live in a community that is not in the locale, but is impacted by the locale's land use decisions (ex: brisbane building 8m square feet of office and expecting SF to build housing for the workers).
Swinging back on this, because I find this stuff interesting.
I don't necessarily disagree with anything you say here. But I'm still not sure it gets at the crux of my question.
If local control of land use systematically creates problems for people that don't have the privilege of living in the jurisdiction in question, maybe it's time to put control of land use or certain aspects of land use in the hands of regional counsels of government (much like Metropolitan Planning Organizations plan for transportation needs at a metro-area level, rather than a city level). I think that lets you start solving not only the problem in question in the article, but all sorts of other problems that you address. (Maybe this could work at the State level too, but I think that's too broad. People in San Jose certainly have some interest in San Francisco land use... but do people in Sacramento? Not much.)
But that's very different from leaving land use in the hands of city governments, then overriding them on individual issues when you don't like what they're doing. Right?
I think part of my thinking on this is shaped from living in NC, and watching the insanity that was HB2 (which you likely heard of, if you're up on the news). Basically, Charlotte raises minimum wage and adds some protections for LGBT folks, state legislatures doesn't like it, and so passes a law preventing local governments from being able to set the minimum wage in their area, or grant rights/protections beyond what's granted by the state. The fallout was absolute insanity for, like, a year.
All of that to say - if you want State government overriding local government rights, you have to be prepared for the day when the State legislature is doing something you don't like, and the local government is doing something you do. Right?
In the end, like I said before, I think this policy is good, but I think there's better ways to go about it. Regional counsels of government having more authority over land use seems like a great start to me. Actually, I'd be interested to know if somebody's proposed that.
I agree with your idea that, in an ideal world, we should promote more land use and transit decision making to metro level governments. The problem is that politics is the art of the possible, and this is the set of stakeholders we can currently wrangle to push forth a pro-housing agenda.
> if you want State government overriding local government rights, you have to be prepared for the day when the State legislature is doing something you don't like, and the local government is doing something you do. Right?
I do some volunteering/organizing in local politics, and there are a few "problem domains" within local government. Pretty much everything in local government boils down to "land use", "police" and "education". Additionally, smaller governments are _always_ more beholden to parochial interests than state governments are. Its kind of a "sample size" issue with local governments. As an example, lets say that 1 in 1000 people cares a lot about 1 specific issue and get involved, and that there is a universe of 10 issues in which government is looking to work on. In a city of 20k people, you would expect that each of these 10 issues would have thought leadership promulgated by only 2 people, thus the debates, policy crafting etc will be highly impacted by these 2 peoples narrow views. in a state government of 2m people, there will be more like 200 people interested in thought leadership and policy crafting on a single issue, thus the ultimate policies crafted will be less beholden to the specific biases of individuals.
"Yes, yes we do. Local control of land use is the reason we are in this mess."
No, no we don't. I don't usually side with conservatives, but this is comically bad policy. It's a state power-grab for supply side controls -- planned economy thinking -- justified by Adam Smith rhetoric, because some folks in San Francisco have decided that they know what's wrong with the local planning of every other city in the state.
It's especially irritating, because the transit corridors that this legislation targets -- BART, Caltrain, etc. -- suck, and the sheer vacuum of their suckage probably has more to do with local housing density than any particular zoning rule. I cracked up at your Brisbane example...people choose not to live in Brisbane because it's inconvenient to everywhere, not because Brisbane has zoning restrictions. You could let developers build skyscrapers right next to the single Caltrain station (you know...the one next to the city dump?), and they still won't do it, because the demand doesn't exist. People aren't clamoring to live in Brisbane, and office parks are probably the only thing that sells.
Make it quick and painless to commute to Brisbane (or any other city) by something other than car, and you won't have to tell the local lawmakers how to set their rules. The flow of money will do it for you. This is just silly grandstanding, not practical legislation.
> ... It's a state power-grab for supply side controls -- planned economy thinking -- justified by Adam Smith rhetoric, because some folks in San Francisco have decided that they know what's wrong with the local planning of every other city in the state.
How is this planned economy thinking? It seems to loosen regulation in local markets to allow developers to more readily meet demand.
Quite to the contrary the current city zoning rules seem like planned economy thinking, because it makes a zoning plan that is rarely changed over even a decade-long timeline to match housing supply with the current demand.
> people choose not to live in Brisbane because it's inconvenient to everywhere, not because Brisbane has zoning restrictions.
Your argument seem to assume that the state will force developers to build where there is no demand. This law says nothing about that and the state has no such power, and this law to the contrary seek to ease regulation where there is demand for developers to build.
Contrary to what you say Brisbane is served by public transit by both Muni and Caltrain. There is also a developer that wants to build a lot of new housing in Brisbane, so the market clearly think there is demand for new housing in Brisbane. The largest obstacle for the market to meet this demand is local zoning and the planning process in Brisbane.
"How is this planned economy thinking? It seems to loosen regulation in local markets to allow developers to more readily meet demand."
It's state government trying to override local economic (zoning) decisions. It's the very definition of a centrally planned economy.
"Contrary to what you say Brisbane is served by public transit by both Muni and Caltrain."
There's one Caltrain stop. It's a 30-minute walk from the residential part of Brisbane, across the freeway and around the dump. MUNI bus service to the area is irregular and unreliable. The only practical commute option is car.
> It's state government trying to override local economic (zoning) decisions. It's the very definition of a centrally planned economy.
You are mischaracterizing the law and what zoning is. Zoning does not produce any housing and is instead an artificial constraint on housing supply. The planning after this law is still done at the city level, but the city is constrained in what planning it can do.
> There's one Caltrain stop. It's a 30-minute walk from the residential part of Brisbane, across the freeway and around the dump. MUNI bus service to the area is irregular and unreliable. The only practical commute option is car.
The developer is proposing to build upon the landfill just next to the caltrain stop, so for the new development this won't be a concern.
> You could let developers build skyscrapers right next to the single Caltrain station (you know...the one next to the city dump?), and they still won't do it, because the demand doesn't exist.
There is literally a developer (http://www.universalparagoncorp.com/) waiting to build a project there. They submitted a proposal with 4400 residential units, and the NIMBYs are trying to shut it down.
> Make it quick and painless to commute to Brisbane (or any other city) by something other than car, and you won't have to tell the local lawmakers how to set their rules.
It's already quick and painless to commute to the proposed development by Caltrain. The local lawmakers are structurally incentivized to keep development out, which is the whole reason for this legislative proposal.
I have no idea what the reasons are for opposing the Brisbane development, and I highly doubt you (or the state legislature) does either. It sounds like there are reasonable arguments that the city will lose on tax income [1], which is bad, and seems like something the state could actually fix, instead of attempting to engage in central planning.
If there are legitimate local concerns over a development, the state shouldn't be allowed to override them just because Scott Weiner thinks there should be more development (and no, invoking "NIMBYism" isn't a counterargument).
[1] "Under California’s tax system, Brisbane also earns more money if it rejects the current plan in favor of potential alternatives with more hotel rooms and space for businesses — but no homes."
> I highly doubt you (or the state legislature) does either
I do, because I've been following the issue, the Brisbane city council meetings, and the reasons that the Brisbane city council has been citing. It's not a secret.
> the city will lose on tax income [1], which is bad
The city is not entitled to hypothetical future tax income.
> If there are legitimate local concerns over a development, the state shouldn't be allowed to override them
Wishing for more tax revenue and property value appreciation is not a legitimate local concern. The city is not entitled to arbitrarily decide who can lawfully move in or build on privately owned land within its limits.
> I cracked up at your Brisbane example...people choose not to live in Brisbane because it's inconvenient to everywhere, not because Brisbane has zoning restrictions.
That's not true at all. Brisbane is sitting on a huge plot of undeveloped land right next to caltrain (the baylands). The developer came to them with a plan to build a lot of housing on it, and the city told them they would only accept offices on the site, that they didn't want any residential development. The developer (aka, the best party to judge flows of money and profitability) wants housing, the nimby residents say no. Pricies for crappy single family homes in brisbane are in the millions, that is clearly a sign that people want to live there.
> The developer (aka, the best party to judge flows of money and profitability) wants housing, the nimby residents say no.
The developer is the best party to judge the flow of money into their pockets from initial sale of the property, but not the long-term flow of costs and benefits of development, which they give fuck-all about since it doesn't effect them. Cities are concerned with balancing tax revenue vs. ongoing service costs (and, yes, with political concerns of voters like NIMBYism, but those thingd aren't entirely unrelated to each other.)
For anyone familiar with the Bay Area real estate market, this is obviously wrong.
Looking at recent sales, homes in Brisbane are selling at ~$600/sqft, which is easily enough to support the construction of dense housing. For comparison, that's about the same as Toronto, higher than Seattle and many other major cities.
All of Brisbane is near 101, which makes it better than a lot of places in the Peninsula for commuting.
Also, developers in the region are eagerly building condos and townhouses on any land they can get approval for, including areas with serious issues - eg. fifty feet from the Caltrain line but far from the nearest station. If you take a look at new construction listings you will see tons of these, and they sell great because many buyers prefer them over an eighty year old bungalow with tiny bedrooms, termites, and mold.
Yes, yes we do. Local control of land use is the reason we are in this mess. Local control of land use is the reason why our neighborhoods are still de facto segregated by race even though de jure segregation ended 50 years ago. Local control constricts the policy influencers to a circle that is too small, because it exlcudes from the discourse people who: 1) work in the locale in question, but cannot afford to live there, 2) people who commute through the locale in question, 3) people who live in a community that is not in the locale, but is impacted by the locale's land use decisions (ex: brisbane building 8m square feet of office and expecting SF to build housing for the workers).