Hacker News Reader

I live in Oakland, in an expensive neighborhood near BART full of single family homes, and very much support rezoning my neighborhood to allow for 4-6 story buildings, and would take those buildings on my own block. No, I am not willing to tear down my own house and inconvenience myself for years while building a 4 story multi unit building. But I would wholeheartedly support a neighbor doing so. I want more people in this area, I want the commercial activity that higher density brings, I want the added demand for public transit investment, more restaurants, more diversity, etc. That is in stark contrast to the typical NIMBY view. So you can call it something else if you want, but there are definitely differences between mentalities.

Right, you support it on the other side of the neighborhood. You support in the case where you get all of the benefits and bear none of the costs. I do too. But I'm not so obtuse that I'm going to pretend that I'm part of the some kind of altruistic housing movement.

You keep expressing this false dichotomy up and down the thread. Please engage with charity.

The argument being made is that the law shouldn’t forbid, or through burueacratic heel dragging prevent, my neighbor from selling to a developer to build a tall building next to me.

You said, “The NIMBY’s and YIMBY’s are the same.” In this regard, dougmccune appears to very much disagree, and you’re just dismissing his argument that he’d be happy to have developers build next to him, by claiming that because he doesn’t plan on selling his house, he’s just being a NIMBY. That is very much not where the locus of the argument is.

No one is proposing that we eminent domain the whole of Nob Hill, and force everyone to move who doesn’t have any intention of selling.

The law doesn't forbid you from selling to a developer. It's not about personal property and who you can sell to. You can sell to whoever you like.

Local planning code determines what can and can't be done, not who you can sell to. This is true everywhere.

And I actually don't think eminent domain (over time) is a terrible idea. Make the area around Golden Gate Park look like Central Park and your housing problem is solved.

The law doesn’t forbid you from selling to a developer, but the law does forbid the developer from turning a single-unit house into an apartment. Or even a duplex, a lot of the time. Just look at the zoning maps. Around Golden Gate Park, the height limit is 40 feet, and a lot of it is single-family zoning. http://sf-planning.org/zoning-maps

A lot of the time, it is more practical to take that single-family house and turn it into a fancy single-family house. Satisfying gentrification. https://sf.curbed.com/2018/4/25/17277290/glen-park-home-expe...

I literally said I support rezoning my block and support someone building a 4-6 story building next to my house.

You keep saying there is no difference, but there is a very simple and obvious difference: the YIMBY position supports upzoning everywhere, including where they live. The NIMBY position does not support that. It's about changing zoning to allow for more density, not about any particular new building in any particular location. Saying that one has to demolish their own home before they can support upzoning is nonsensical.

I live in the Mission in a three story building and would be fine with someone building a six story building next to or behind mine.

> Right, you support it on the other side of the neighborhood.

He didn't say that at all. In fact, he said if his neighbor decided to build higher density he wouldn't oppose it.

Do you own the house you live in?

Yes

Do you think the value of your house would go up or down with this zoning change? (totally fine if you think it would go up! I suspect it would up and am curious if you agree)

I honestly don't know. I can see arguments in both directions, maybe more building makes everything more affordable and my property becomes worth "less" or maybe it results in nothing but expensive condos and my fancy neighborhood just gets fancier. I'm in the incredibly lucky and privileged position to not have to care that much about my personal home's property value. I spend a lot of money to live where I live. If I was interested in choosing where I live in order to maximize my wealth I'd move to a state with no income tax. Instead I choose to live in a place I love (both the Bay Area regionally and Oakland locally) and want that place to be as great as it can be. I think more people makes this place better. I want kids for my kids to play with on our block. I want empty storefronts to be full of new restaurants. I'd like my neighborhood and the Bay Area to get more affordable so my friends don't have to move away when they have families and are hoping to upgrade from a one bedroom apartment. I'd take a sizable hit on my property value to make that happen.

I also live in Oakland.

It's interesting to think that if prop 13 was repealed, it would cause a ton of supply to come to market. So it wouldn't necessary "change anything" except all that supply might depress prices a bit. Funny how that works. Same house, same benefit, just a lot less price.

There are plenty of places in SF without beautiful views where the density is low. People may choose to sell their four bed home to be developed into a high rise if the price is good but they are being stopped by zoning laws. Relax the zoning laws and we'll find out if you are right.

The people who live there don't want to relax the zoning laws. They like it the way it is. That's why they vote against it.

Then no one there will sell to build a high rise. What is the legislation for?

It appears you're saying that "A YIMBY's only valid political stance is to advocate for the destruction of the building they live in, otherwise they can be safely ignored."

I'm assuming I'm wrong, and I sincerely hope I am. "Saint or GTFO" arguments are pretty facile.

I'm saying drop the fake YIMBY nonsense and just be honest about it. Stop pretending like we are all in this together and you are going to bear the cost the same as everyone else. It's Yes-In-Your-Backyard. It always has been and there's nothing wrong with that.

I 100% support rezoning. Just not in my area.

Using a literalist expansion of YIMBY doesn't seem constructive.

Do you demand the same locality standard for people who block building housing and/or upzoning in places that aren't their domicile or directly adjacent to it?

In your view, how close does someone need to live to construction to have a preference about whether it happens or not? It sounds like your metric is "they should be made personally miserable, so that they regret asking for it in the first place.", which is begging the question a bit.

Don't call your movement YIMBY when the YIMBY position is the exact same as the NIMBY one, but you want to feel morally superior. Both support building as long as they don't have to bear the cost. NIMBYs in the Marina support building in The Mission the same way Mission YIMBY supports building in the Sunset and Richmond.

I live in Nob Hill. There's a unit going up across the street from me, but it's not that big and didn't affect me so I don't mind. I went to some of the meetings and had no comment.

I 100% support building in San Francisco. Just as long as it doesn't affect me. And the reality is that's true for everyone. So we should figure out how to actually deal with that reality.

I'm the lead organizer of Mission YIMBY, and we support building everywhere. We have a particular focus on upzoning all of the exclusionary neighborhoods where apartments are illegal. We'd be happy if the entirety of San Francisco had the same zoning rules as the Mission, because it results in a healthy and vibrant neighborhood.

We want both subsidized Affordable and market-rate buildings built everywhere in the city, including the Mission. We don't show up at the Planning Commission to fight for the market-rate buildings in the neighborhood because they get built without our help. Neighbors still regularly fight subsidized Affordable housing, even in the Mission.

I kinda get the feeling you're misrepresenting a movement with which you have an ideological disagreement.

See, it's this kind of garbage right here. You support building everywhere, but with a focus on neighborhoods you don't live in.

The majority people in the Sunset and Richmond don't want that (as the voting shows).

You're clearly not engaging in good faith, but for everyone else: Grow The Richmond, Build the North, Progress Noe Valley, Castro for Housing, East Bay for Everyone, and all of the peninsula groups ALL advocate for building in their neighborhoods. There are some neighborhoods, like the Mission, Bayview, the Tenderloin, and Hunter's Point that have suffered under racist policies for decades. The same solution doesn't fit everywhere.

You'd know a lot about that since nothing you do is in good faith.

It is absolutely not the same position.

A YIMBY person would say "Yes, I support allowing people to sell their house and build an apartment building".

A NIMBY person would say "No, I do not support allowing someone ELSE to sell THEIR house that THEY own, to build an apartment building".

It is about rules that effect other people's property, and rules that ALLOW people to sell their property.

A YIMBY person does not want the rules to exist, and a NIMBY person does want these rule to exist.

Both would say: I support apartments being built on land nowhere near my home.

I think the point being made is that YIMBYs don't have yards, and they're advocating for policies that they have been convinced could get them yards, and NIMBYs are advocating for policies that protect the yards that they have.

No, a YIMBY person would be perfectly in favor of everyone being allowed to do what they want with their own property.

A contradiction would be if a YIMBY person said "I DON'T want this person to be allowed to do what they want with their property."

No YIMBY person is arguing for restrictions. They are arguing for removing restrictions, everywhere, and yes that means for their neighbors.

I like the reframing to pretend like this is about personal property.

You can sell your property to whoever you want. But there person who buys it can't do whatever they want. That's how it works everywhere. This is about zoning, not who you can sell your property to.

It IS about property rights though.

I do not have the right to build whatever I want on my property, and I would like that to change.

I would also like other people to have the rights to build whatever they want things THEIR property.

How does arguing in favor of rights for property owners make YIMBY people hypocrits?

You are saying that YIMBY people are doing something contradictory. There is nothing contradictory of arguing in favor of everyone being allowed to do what they want with their property.

This is absolutely a moral argument, as it is about people being allowed to do what they want with property that they own. Arguments regarding rights are moral arguments.

Then don't buy property in an area where the community has decided that property rights should have certain limits.

If you want the "right to build whatever [you] want" go move out into an unincorporated area. Don't move to San Francisco and then try to force everyone around you to change so that YOU can do whatever YOU want.

Instead of doing that, I am just going to try and get the laws changed.

There are lots of people who care about affordable housing, and we are growing in political power.

The rich people who only care about protecting their property values and increasing their rent prices, are slowing being outnumbered by renters who will vote to increase supply.

We no longer live in a time where you have to be a property owner to vote. New people in an area have just as many political rights as property owners.

So no, I am not going to just shut up and do nothing. I am going to play to win. And that means voting and trying to change the law.

It will take time, but we are gaining in strength, because there are just so many people who are getting screwed by the establishment political interests. So I am confident that the supply problem will be solved eventually.

I am sorry that people participating in a democracy offends you. And a democracy means that everyone has the same political rights, regardless of whether they have just moved to a city or if they have been there for 30 years.

What is dishonest about YIMBY? I would totally be fine if the the 50+ year old 4 story apartment building I live in was replaced with a modern 8 story building.

Exactly. In your backyard. Not on top of your home.

Do you rent or own a home?

I rent.

How can you try to claim the moral high ground re: "someone else's" property while supporting zoning laws literally prevent people from doing what they would like with the property they own?

I don't claim the moral high ground. I'm just saying that YIMBYism is a farce.

We need more housing. We should rezone certain areas. But we should be honest about it. This is a needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few argument, not some fake pseudo- altruistic bullshit.

> not some fake pseudo- altruistic bullshit

Ha! Welcome to SF. The city that pretends that letting homeless people shoot up and overdose in the street means that we are respecting their right to live the way they want. In any decent society we would be helping these people, and we would disrupt their destructive way of living, which is destructive not just to them but to society as a whole (public health concerns, needles and human excrements on the street, etc).

But...electric scooters are the current biggest problem for the city administration.

Edit: to the downvoters, care to explain your disagreement?

I did not downvote, but this seems like a tangent.

I bet no one votes to raise their own income taxes for just themselves. And yet, nearly everyone votes to raise everyone elses because it's supposedly for the common good.

Cost effective housing is for the common good to.

I support more development in my neighborhood.

Actually, in California what people did was vote to raise the property tax rates of people moving into the state without raising their own. That's Prop 13 in a nutshell.

I support more development in your neighborhood too.

so your position is that neighbors should have defacto veto rights over their direct neighbor's property?

Also, do you count someone who is a tenant and not a land owner as "someone" in your diatribe above?

I support the position that the people who live in that locality should determine what happens there. In a sense, I support the status quo—because that's the way it is right now. But instead we call that NIMBYism. The whole YIMBY movement is trying to move things up a few levels so that people who live outside of a building/block/neighborhood/city can determine what happens within.

Again, how about the people who own the property should decide what happens with it?

The YIMBY movement is trying to move things down to the appropriate level.

It's literally not. The attempts to pass rezoning laws are moving up (e.g. SB 827) to the state level now because all local attempts are failing. Every time someone tries to build up outside of SOMA it fails and people cry about the NIMBYs. But NIMBY in almost all these cases is just another word for local resident. Just a few weeks ago a group called Mission YIMBY was advocating for rezoning the Sunset and Richmond. Like, how obtuse can you be?

I'm not talking about who sets the zoning laws, I'm talking about who makes decisions re: a particular property.

If you're into local control and people close to the ground making decisions, no one is closer and should know better than the literal property owner. If kicking zoning laws up to the state level helps empower property owners than it absolutely is giving more local control.

People who own property can't do whatever they want with it. That's true everywhere.

This is 100% about zoning laws. About what can be done with a particular piece of property and what can (and can not) be built.

The reality is when people buy a property, they buy a neighborhood too. That's true all around the US. You have the right to veto a liquor store popping up next door. You have a right to veto a lot of things. But naturally its a grey area. If you can get enough of your neighbors to agree, you can build a higher building too. The support needs to be there.

When someone is moving out of a property, they have very little attachment to what happens to it (other than profit) - unlike their neighbors. It makes sense the neighbors have some say.

No, it's not true all around the US. There are plenty of places where if somebody buys a property, it's theirs to do what they want within with rules set by the government. There are places in Texas, for example, that don't even have zoning laws. The interference by local communities is not a universal thing.

Texas still has deed restrictions that prevent corner stores in residential neighborhoods, density restrictions, buffering ordinances, historic preservation sites, lot size restrictions, and other things like work similar to zoning laws.

That would be a valid position if all the investment into local amenities were at local level. We all pay taxes to build a light rail line, or pave the streets, or maintain the parks, or even create enough demand for shops/restaurants on the main street of a central, single family zoned neighborhood that would never generate enough demand from locals only. The entity that creates the amenities (the city, or the state) should have a say about development around these amenities.

Another aspect of this is that upzoning will still allow locals to decide... it's not magic, the buildings don't just become skyscrapers when you upzone. The locals have to have a preference to sell to the developer who would build those. All you do with zoning is allow some locals dictate to others what they do with their land, based on semi-accidental status quo.

So in reality its sounds more like "Yes in someone else's backyard". Which in principle is hardly any different than NIMBY

No one votes against their own self interest.

Plenty of renters vote to constrain and restrict the supply of housing, even in the face of increased demand. That is directly against their own self interest.