Is this scenario contingent on if SF fails to comply in time for the housing element deadline and is decertified? Or is the new attitude towards housing the same regardless?
The crazy thing is this is the baseline scenario if the city stays in compliance with its housing element. If the housing element is decertified, which I think is pretty unlikely to happen, developers will be able to build basically whatever they want, wherever they want.
"strong tenant rights and strict regulations governing the demolition of existing housing"
These provisions, along with rent stabilization and inclusionary zoning, just mean new supply will remain low and rents high.
What "affordable housing" in California means:
the developer has to pay prevailing wage, which results in studio apartments costing $500-800k each, and the tenants only get a small discount depending on their income.
I agree that there's no way California can build enough deed restricted affordable housing for everyone who can't afford housing currently. A huge increase in market rate housing construction is clearly necessary, which is why I support the policies described in the piece to loosen land use regulations and let developers build.
I also think its essential to minimize displacement and preserve existing affordable housing. Demolition of rent control housing is catastrophic for the people who live in those units, and bad for the city and its affordability writ large.
Inclusionary zoning is trickier. I think it can be a good policy, but it needs to be appropriately calibrated to market conditions. SF's old IZ rate was way too high. Fortunately, the city just lowered it.
Broadly, I think most cities in the US would benefit from a "grand housing bargain" — significantly liberalized land use regulations, building codes, etc along with a suite of anti-displacement policies including anti-rent gouging policies and other eviction protections.
San Francisco is too important a city for the human species to be overly worried about "displacement" and "neighborhood racial diversity." It's at the bleeding edge of the AI revolution, and terrible housing policies have likely killed thousands of startups over the years due to exorbitant rents, which rent-controlled units contribute to by reducing the available supply of units to non-impoverished residents.
One could make a plausible argument that hundreds of billions/trillions of dollars of GDP and scores of technological innovations have been lost due to SF's housing failures. Are a few rent-controlled units worth it? And don't even get me started on the hilariously selective libertarianism of allowing crackheads to smoke meth in front of school kids while punitively regulating businesses into extinction.
Can we get a significant amount of market rate housing while passing so many anti displacement policies? I'm not sure. That combination doesn't appear to exist anywhere.
Local rent stabilization doesn't apply to any building that's got a certificate of occupancy from after 1995. (Civil Code 1954.52, aka the Costa-Hawkins Act).
You get a 15 year exemption from statewide rent control as well (Civil Code 1946.2(e)(7)).
Where is the plan to deal with buildings in seismically sensitive flood zones? Before you rush to conclusions about building dense housing everywhere, you may want to peruse this site and see what the longevity of the seafront and landfill is expected to be.
Look at the video or the below page that includes a public survey re: options for mitigating sea level rise and what SF and the port may consider doing about it.
Tuesday, November 21, 6:30 PM General Assembly
Program – Waterfront Resilience Program
Luiz Barata , Sr. Planner/Urban Designer, Port of SF,
This takes a little longer, but, https://sfport.com/wrp has all the maps and concepts and surveys to go through. It may be well worth going through before jumping to conclusions about the wisdom of density at or near sea level.
It's a good point. Thanks for sharing these resources. Ultimately, the new housing laws will direct development away from those vulnerable areas. Previously, low-lying neighborhoods like SoMa and Mission Bay were among the few areas where development was allowed. Now, development will be directed to higher elevation areas like the Richmond, Sunset, Pac Heights and the Van Ness corridor.
Is this scenario contingent on if SF fails to comply in time for the housing element deadline and is decertified? Or is the new attitude towards housing the same regardless?
The crazy thing is this is the baseline scenario if the city stays in compliance with its housing element. If the housing element is decertified, which I think is pretty unlikely to happen, developers will be able to build basically whatever they want, wherever they want.
"strong tenant rights and strict regulations governing the demolition of existing housing"
These provisions, along with rent stabilization and inclusionary zoning, just mean new supply will remain low and rents high.
What "affordable housing" in California means:
the developer has to pay prevailing wage, which results in studio apartments costing $500-800k each, and the tenants only get a small discount depending on their income.
There isn't enough money to build many of these
I agree that there's no way California can build enough deed restricted affordable housing for everyone who can't afford housing currently. A huge increase in market rate housing construction is clearly necessary, which is why I support the policies described in the piece to loosen land use regulations and let developers build.
I also think its essential to minimize displacement and preserve existing affordable housing. Demolition of rent control housing is catastrophic for the people who live in those units, and bad for the city and its affordability writ large.
Inclusionary zoning is trickier. I think it can be a good policy, but it needs to be appropriately calibrated to market conditions. SF's old IZ rate was way too high. Fortunately, the city just lowered it.
Broadly, I think most cities in the US would benefit from a "grand housing bargain" — significantly liberalized land use regulations, building codes, etc along with a suite of anti-displacement policies including anti-rent gouging policies and other eviction protections.
San Francisco is too important a city for the human species to be overly worried about "displacement" and "neighborhood racial diversity." It's at the bleeding edge of the AI revolution, and terrible housing policies have likely killed thousands of startups over the years due to exorbitant rents, which rent-controlled units contribute to by reducing the available supply of units to non-impoverished residents.
One could make a plausible argument that hundreds of billions/trillions of dollars of GDP and scores of technological innovations have been lost due to SF's housing failures. Are a few rent-controlled units worth it? And don't even get me started on the hilariously selective libertarianism of allowing crackheads to smoke meth in front of school kids while punitively regulating businesses into extinction.
Can we get a significant amount of market rate housing while passing so many anti displacement policies? I'm not sure. That combination doesn't appear to exist anywhere.
Local rent stabilization doesn't apply to any building that's got a certificate of occupancy from after 1995. (Civil Code 1954.52, aka the Costa-Hawkins Act).
You get a 15 year exemption from statewide rent control as well (Civil Code 1946.2(e)(7)).
I don't think that helps much.
There are also increasing transfer taxes that make development infeasible.
Where is the plan to deal with buildings in seismically sensitive flood zones? Before you rush to conclusions about building dense housing everywhere, you may want to peruse this site and see what the longevity of the seafront and landfill is expected to be.
Look at the video or the below page that includes a public survey re: options for mitigating sea level rise and what SF and the port may consider doing about it.
Tuesday, November 21, 6:30 PM General Assembly
Program – Waterfront Resilience Program
Luiz Barata , Sr. Planner/Urban Designer, Port of SF,
Link to video: https://youtu.be/sccMBL_6ycA?si=bzKOpNds7FQTs05i
This takes a little longer, but, https://sfport.com/wrp has all the maps and concepts and surveys to go through. It may be well worth going through before jumping to conclusions about the wisdom of density at or near sea level.
It's a good point. Thanks for sharing these resources. Ultimately, the new housing laws will direct development away from those vulnerable areas. Previously, low-lying neighborhoods like SoMa and Mission Bay were among the few areas where development was allowed. Now, development will be directed to higher elevation areas like the Richmond, Sunset, Pac Heights and the Van Ness corridor.