Conversation

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

"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

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

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.

Replying to

2:28 AM · Nov 17, 2020Twitter for iPhone

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.

Replying to

sigh. you're just devolving into personal NIMBYism. if you want to live in the middle of nature, that's fine, but it's incredibly inefficient and regressive for a resource/transit rich place like central SF to look like that in a way that's only accessible for multi-millionaires