City of San Francisco tells man he can't live in wooden box in friend's living room

boing
101

It seems that where housing is concerned, SFO is the 0.5% portion of the United States which is responsible for at least 40% of the whingeing.

1 Like
102

Given the numbers of local governments and pressure groups which would have to be mollified, and the eminent domain seizures needed, this is effectively the same as the “magic” solution.

1 Like
103

I have no idea what the actual number is, but suppose that to build on a 5000 square foot lot in SFO requires $250,000 in permits, legal fees to fight NIMBY’s, bribes to NIMBY organizations, concert tickets for bureaucrats’ kids. et cetera.

That’s a quarter mil in vigorish before the first shovel of dirt gets turned. With that in mind, does the builder decide to put up a three-flat for low income residents, or a $2 million house for some Google middle manager?

1 Like
104

Californians aren’t going to destroy San Francisco Bay. It is politically and socially a non-starter.

1 Like
105

I was thinking the same exact thing. I always found that part the creepiest part of the character. Cancelled way too soon.

1 Like
106

How about a 10 story tower of apartments/condos?

107

Would require increasing the bribery public relations budget by an order of magnitude.

108

You have the same community NIMBY meetings blocking your building either way. You might as well maximize the return if you survive the gauntlet. It isn’t like San Franciscans want you to build anything really. That’s what I’ve observed from across the Bay.

109

Can’t you build down?

Iceberg apartment buildings inside all those hills?

1 Like
110

Enso, that’s exactly what it’s about. Every long term San Francisco homeowner, “progressive” though she might be, deep deep down luuuuuvs the fact that her home can now be sold for 8x what she paid for it.

She’ll give up 30% in property value about as readily as she’ll give up 30% of her bone marrow.

This is the start point from which each solution must begin.

111

That would be an unusually large (and thus almost impossible to find) lot size in Chicago. Where exactly are lots that size in downtown San Francisco?

112

I own my home in Oakland (and a rental in Berkeley) so I can’t exactly pretend to be disinterested in this motivation. I’m 45 this year and this is my “What happens when I’m 65?” plan.

1 Like
113

The same thing as my aunt and uncle who left SF proper after 40 years. Buy a home in Sonoma County with cash live off the rest.

They’re not going to make any more SF, I wouldn’t worry about a 30% crash.

1 Like
114

I don’t live in SF. :slight_smile:

115

Yeah, you’re probably right. I doubt that the fixed costs would be too much different if it was a ~3000 sq ft Chicago size lot though.

116

Yeah you do. And Brooklynites live in New York City.

117

There is a pretty dramatic difference between the East Bay and SF. I mean, really, I’ve lived here 10 years and barely know SF. I get over there six to eight times a year. The legal codes and attitudes are completely different. While it is an influence, it isn’t as much as some folks think.

118

Faith in the citizenry’s ability to rule themselves?

119

So basically, “don’t hate the player, hate the game”?

120

There’s still a few poor neighborhoods in SF to left gentrify and raze I’m sure.