Comment by TrackerFF | Hacker News Reader

Comment by TrackerFF | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Having lived on another island, with the same woes of SF (limited land, high growth), the problem is always the same - even though it's been on a much smaller scale.

The people that have owned for the past 30-50 years, are completely unwilling to give up on their single family homes, gardens, etc. They basically demand to live a nice and cushy suburban life, in the middle of a big city.

It then takes forever to build vertically, because for every projects that's proposed, there are hundreds, of not thousands of protests from neighbors that'll lose some sunlight, depreciation of property value, and what not - or they just don't like the modern architecture. So it can take YEARS to just get the first shovel in ground, because these projects go through so many rounds in city councils and what not.

That's how you end up with extremely partisan / one-sided city councils, consisting of established home/land owners, that will fight tooth and nail to impose draconian zoning laws, and general NIMBY-politics.

> unwilling to give up on their single family homes

I think that expecting people to "give up their homes" is more than unreasonable. The reasonable compromise being that builders can build in more densely once the current owners sell it.

I think the point is: what if they don't sell it, at all?

Kids move out of the house, parents retire at 65 and live to 85+. That's 20 years, a whole generation.

If the developer can get permission to build 3-5 story apartments on the lot, then their land suddenly becomes way more valuable than the single home ever was. Most retirees will gladly sell and live in luxury elsewhere. If a few don't, it won't make a difference.

  If the developer can get permission to build 3-5 story apartments on the lot

wouldn't that only work for a single unit? Like, yes, if inside a single-family-zoned block a unit would get a special permission to be the only one to build high density, sure that piece of land would be more valuable than before.

But if the whole block gets rezoned, then there's a race to the bottom.

Other comments mentioned that NIMBYs don't want their neighbours to upzone either.

Many single family home owners will strenuously object to having a developer build a 5 storey apartment building next door because they don't want additional noise, traffic, and people looking down into their private back yard. It directly impacts their quality of life.

Absolutely. Upzoning never forces owners to "give up their home"-- maybe the issue is owners don't want their neighbors to be able to sell their homes to developers either.

That's absolutely it. People not only are unwilling to sell - as in their right - but also insist that everyone else be unwilling to sell. If they are willing, the permitting process is made to be as painful as possible, in an effort to discourage everyone involved.

Not necessarily true. An upzoning will likely increase the value of the land, which will result in higher property taxes (assuming this is a normal city with no prop13 nonsense).

The higher taxes could effectively force a land owner to sell their property.

Often part of what existing land owners are fighting for is preferential zoning which artificially keeps the "highest and best use of land" a low density detached house, which keeps land values relatively low.

This is assuming no or poor homestead exemption.

I was having a conversation with a person in my HoA. She complained that, when THEY moved in, the "big" houses (gesturing at my 2-story) didn't exist, and they had a lovely view of the fields past my side of the street.

Well, lady, if you wanted the view, you should have bought my lot.

The concept of air-rights is a good one - if a developer wants to build higher, they can acquire the air rights of the properties close by, at a price the residents find acceptable (for losing their unobstructed views etc).

The Big One may solve that problem.

It can't come soon enough...

The population in San Francisco is at an all time high. I wonder why the popular solution is to transform the city against the wishes of its long time residents into something that newcomers want, and not develop new urban centers elsewhere for newcomers. People act shocked that residents advocated for the kind of city they want and not the kind of city other people want.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com