> Saying something is slow is meaningless if you don't compare it to something else.
I think an obvious comparison is between Tillman's project and the (still abysmal) averages listed later in the article. I.e. Tillman's approach turned out to be slower (or a dead end) for his project; lots of projects are "faster" but still ridiculously bogged down relative to other cities.
> But eight years later and after countless community meetings, hearings, appeals, studies, a legal challenge and a court settlement—the site of the former laundromat at 2918 Mission St. still sits empty.
> That timeline is far from unusual in San Francisco, where it takes more than two years on average to permit housing projects—an unusually slow pace compared to peer cities, according to a draft study published last year.
So his approach was at least 3-4x slower than average.
> What avenue for reform in SF would be faster?
A legal challenge might be a pretty good way to achieve some reform! I also think criminal cases for corrupt city officials are appropriate. But the article isn't claiming to be about how slow it is to reform city government -- it's about how slow it is to build housing. But it picked a project to highlight which seems to have tried to do a little of both.
Per the embedded chart (1/2 way down, "CA Housing Development Average Permitting Timeline"), San Francisco takes an average of 975 days for a project to go from submitted to permitted.
2.6 years to get permitted is not a good faith effort on the part of the city.
That's 'if you're really serious about housing then cut NIMBY rights back to a reasonable level tomorrow' levels of fucked up.
I think an obvious comparison is between Tillman's project and the (still abysmal) averages listed later in the article. I.e. Tillman's approach turned out to be slower (or a dead end) for his project; lots of projects are "faster" but still ridiculously bogged down relative to other cities.
> But eight years later and after countless community meetings, hearings, appeals, studies, a legal challenge and a court settlement—the site of the former laundromat at 2918 Mission St. still sits empty.
> That timeline is far from unusual in San Francisco, where it takes more than two years on average to permit housing projects—an unusually slow pace compared to peer cities, according to a draft study published last year.
So his approach was at least 3-4x slower than average.
> What avenue for reform in SF would be faster?
A legal challenge might be a pretty good way to achieve some reform! I also think criminal cases for corrupt city officials are appropriate. But the article isn't claiming to be about how slow it is to reform city government -- it's about how slow it is to build housing. But it picked a project to highlight which seems to have tried to do a little of both.