Completely self-inflicted. Let’s make sure the rest of the US does not adopt SF policies. For that matter, west coast policies (LA, Seattle, Portland).
Edited to fix link, thanks!
While I understand the logic of the courts, this decision has absolutely ruined public parks in much of the western US.
(I imagine many homeless people who is going to SF would be going/staying elsewhere in that case, maybe I'm wrong about that.)
The rest of the US decided to just ship the homeless west. What could the west coast do other than throw them in the ocean?
Throw them in jail? Then you are just housing them with extra steps. That's more expensive then just simply housing them; if the bay area won't build housing, why would the bay area expand prisons?
On top of that, the permiting process is insane, takes forever (I've gone through it), and costs a lot of money. Your neighbors get a very long time to file any complaints on your proposal (which they always do, because NIMBY). It is such a painful thing that I'd rather avoid doing any more construction.
CA has a lot of rules that make construction very expensive, and SF even more so (only cast iron drain pipes, because ABS is somehow not good enough in this historic city).
Earthquakes are real, but forcing everybody with 5 units (I believe) to retrofit (at the same time) cost millions of dollars per property - driving up the rent.
And now solar power is mandatory for new construction, and solar is great, but it does add tens of thousands per unit.
* The project had been before the Planning Commission for at least a year.
* The project had completed an final Environmental Impact Report that had been approved by the Planning Committee. Another regulatory hurdle of questionable value for a mid-city development.
* An advocacy group, Yerba Buena Neighborhood Consortium, apparently run by a local affordable housing ownership group called TODCO, had their lawyers file an appeal to the Board of Supes opposing certification of the EIR. What could have been a pro-forma approval is now another potential place for roadblock.
* The environmental reasons? Millenium Tower FUD, gentrification, and shadows on a nearby mid-city plaza. The scope of EIRs has apparently gotten massive if gentrification is included. (Whether a Nordstrom valet parking lot better serves the local low-income community than actual housing with an affordable housing carve-out is another question.)
* The Board of Supes reverses the Planning Commission's approval. Back to the drawing board. Or... if you want to _sell_ that property you can't do anything with, I'm sure there's a local property owner that will take it off your hands if the price is low enough. ;-)
We see here multiple stages way beyond zoning where a housing project can get torpedoed, and that these extra stages have grown in scope to cover just about anything local property owners might want to object to. And that's not even considering San Francisco's Discretionary Review process, which gives local groups even _more_ opportunities to delay or kill your project if they don't like it.
Anecdotally, I live in a quite affordable medium sized city in the midwest, and even we have a homeless crisis and an increasingly number of homeless encampments on public property. The local government being dominated by progressives, lets these encampments continue - which previously were never permitted.
Right now, the price of homes is going up everywhere, and as a consequence, I'd expect to see more homelessness everywhere.
The camps may also have something to do with this, which has little to do with what local politicians do or do not want: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_v._Boise
It's bizarre how much people fight against this notion. You talk about not many people having Ferraris because they're expensive, and people look at you like "uh, ok, duh". But when the median price of homes is over 850,000 dollars (California), it's this BIG MYSTERY why people do not have homes.
Second house/vacation house (not rented): Multiply property tax by 10.
Rentals (including airbnb): If mortgaged: Max the rental (monthly and daily) to 1.1x Mortgage amount + yearly property tax amount / 12. Unmortgaged: Property tax amount * 2 max per monthly income.
Change the maximum amount you can sell a house to be equal to cost of materials plus 30 days of labor for 5 people.
Owner builder homes can get a 60K automatic grant - everything must be verified - and limit land HOA rules that specify a minimum sized house.
Make "Limited Density Owner-Built Rural Dwellings" possible in areas that are not affected by fire.
Finally to make all this feasible - make junk properties illegal (noise limits + junkyard style land usage)
It would solve a lot of NIMBY issues and please the YIMBYs. I have a billion other crazy ideas like this.
That's a terrible idea, who will construct anything if there is no money to be made? You don't fix those kinds of problems by price fixing, let the free market take care of the supply/demand issue. Unfortunately, the bay area is far from a free market when it comes to housing.
The problem with market rate is for homes is that it turns one person's ability to be homed into another person's extraneous income flip.