No, just average people, who built the community over time into something desirable, that were promised with zoning laws that it would be the type of community (single family homes, etc) that they wanted, and that then dedicated the majority of their lifetime earning power to purchase a home there.
There are how many acres of land in this country? Why do you have a right to overrule the will of people in one comparatively small community to force that community to be something else, in the name of affordable housing, when there is so much land available elsewhere? You want it, build it, commit your life to it, like they did in paying so much of their lifetime income into their family home. If we were a tiny island country you might have an argument, but there is soooo much land in this country, arbitrarily picking one small area because that is where you want to be is not a right.
You don’t even need to build, there’s plenty of cheap already built housing in places like detroit. Ask yourself: why do people prefer to live in san francisco so much more than detroit? It has nothing to do with the housing market. Solving the housing problem might not need to involve housing policies at all, just creating reasons for people to want to look for housing in other places.
Detroit is a crime ridden and cold place in comparison to San Francisco. I moved to a similar city (Cleveland, OH) and I see why people may want to live in SF instead of this place. The neighborhoods look very depressing, it's overcast most of the time and despite cold weather adequate house construction quality is just not there, so maybe I'm paying less for the rent, but living in these old houses with leaking foundations and walls full of holes is just not comfortable.
This is the problem with promoting a highly illiquid and undiversified asset, bought with extreme government-backed leverage, as an ideal savings and investment strategy for people who don't know any better.
Existing homeowners would prefer to profit from a vibrant dynamic and growing community, they just need to screw over all the newcomers bringing that growth, those people who need new housing, by not allowing new housing, which drives up their property values.
They don't block job creation, which attracts people, they just block new housing. And then complain about the homeless.
I'd say removing the interstate from the Embarcadero and Hayes Valley is a substantial improvement, but your point still stands. That was politically unpopular and required a major earthquake.
In demographic and vibe, sure, but the built environment is very much the same. The city was even _downzoned_ in 1978 [1] to keep single family homes at the end of their life from being demolished and rebuilt into denser apartments: 76% of the city would be rezoned as single family home only.
> No, just average people, who built the community over time into something desirable, that were promised with zoning laws that it would be the type of community (single family homes, etc) that they wanted, and that then dedicated the majority of their lifetime earning power to purchase a home there.
No one was promised that the zoning laws wouldn't someday change.
Maybe what's really needed is a complete repeal of proposition 13. If homeowners want to block local development leading to increasing housing costs, they can at least pay for it in their taxes.
Frankly that's a waste of time. People are are all too happy not paying their fair share of taxes and will fight hard to preserve that inequity. The clearly correct approach is for the state to continue its current path of overruling local zoning ordinances and to allow increases in density against the will of local homeowners.
> The clearly correct approach is for the state to continue its current path of overruling local zoning ordinances and to allow increases in density against the will of local homeowners.
That's a very radical statement. In your view, the role of the state is to go against the wishes of people who actually live there? To satify whom? People who are not citizens of the state who might later move in if things change?
What if the state angers the locals to leave and the outsiders who instigated the change decide not to move in after all?
Can you document historical cases of cities and states which thrived on such an approach?
There are how many acres of land in this country? Why do you have a right to overrule the will of people in one comparatively small community to force that community to be something else, in the name of affordable housing, when there is so much land available elsewhere? You want it, build it, commit your life to it, like they did in paying so much of their lifetime income into their family home. If we were a tiny island country you might have an argument, but there is soooo much land in this country, arbitrarily picking one small area because that is where you want to be is not a right.