Conversation

sam
@sam_d_1995
It’s absurd that we have mansions like this just a few blocks from the Forest Hill Muni Metro station that offers a 15 minute, one-seat ride to downtown SF. Exclusionary zoning literally makes it illegal to build apartments here. Time for the Board of Supervisors to fix this!
Image
5
5
100
Jesse Powell
@jespow
I don’t know if a 1-car garage house can qualify as a mansion but they probably didn’t want the muni stop in the first place. There is some value to zoning rules being predictable. If the city wants to change, it should give decades of notice or compensate zoning change victims.
3
2
sam
@sam_d_1995
an upzoning would make this land far more valuable. there are no victims, only people who have the ability to build more on their existing land.
1
11
Jesse Powell
@jespow
Maybe. Increased housing density isn’t always good. Rich people might leave your city entirely if they can’t have a big house on a big lot. You have to put them somewhere too. And where do you draw the line with unit size minimums, building height maximums, parking, etc?
2
sam
@sam_d_1995
lol, nobody would force anyone to sell their mansions. all upzoning does is make it legal for someone who lives in a mansion to turn that into apartments if they wish.
1
7
Jesse Powell
@jespow
Yeah but you may effectively force a sale by significantly downgrading the quality of life for a neighboring property through overbuilding. Let’s say your neighbors on both sides tear down their 4br houses and build 40br sky rises? Now you’re dealing with 10x noise, traffic, etc.
1
sam
@sam_d_1995
"overbuilding" in the middle of San Francisco blocks away from muni metro isn't really a thing. Plus, all upzoning proposals \have <10 story buildings in this area, not skyscrapers. i fear that you're just coming up with hypotheticals to justify NIMBYism
1
11
Jesse Powell
@jespow
Replying to
@sam_d_1995
I’m just saying that it’s super costly to hold the threat of arbitrary, unpredictable zoning changes over the real estate market. When you buy a house, you’re betting on the future. Would be different if the gov only leased land out and told everyone up front about changes coming
2:19 AM · Nov 17, 2020Twitter for iPhone
sam
@sam_d_1995
Replying to
@jespow
it's actually not super costly. it actually produces a ton of economic value for society by letting previously unusable potential real estate become possible. think about it - density is like magic, it literally creates real estate out of thin air.
1
6
Jesse Powell
@jespow
For society but not necessarily for the affected land owners and current residents. It’s the argument to sacrifice 1 hospital patient for the organs to save 5 others. I benefit more from less traffic, more trees, more sky. You’re assuming I’d put increased land value above that.
1
Show replies
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Jesse Powell
@jespow
It’s the eventual buyers and the price of uncertainty. If I think there’s a 50% chance my neighbor’s house is torn down to build a 200-unit skyscraper in the next 10 years, I might discount the value by 50% vs having certainty it wouldn’t happen for 50 years.
2
Show replies