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.
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.
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...
He didn't say that at all. In fact, he said if his neighbor decided to build higher density he wouldn't oppose it.
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.
It's interesting to think that if prop 13 was repealed, it would cause a ton of supply to come to market.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.