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.
Conversation
"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
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
1
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
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
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
1
5
You’re saying it’s only fine for a time, until you come to rezone my new rural neighborhood for some supposed superior use of land, to benefit some builder’s business and nearby city, at which point I will be forced to fight you or move again. Where does it end?
1
lol... that's just not how it works. as a matter of fact, it's like the opposite of how it works
if we allow sufficient density in major cities, we won't need to keep sprawling further and further into the wildland urban interface to build housing as we do now
1
5
How do you know when it’s “sufficient”? People beget people. Look at Tokyo, Hong Kong/Kowloon, NYC. There used to be open fields outside of the cities but the skycrapers eventually came for them. How far out is safe? Why not focus on better transportation or starting a new city?
1
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Replying to
And then what happens when the city starts encroaching on my once rural neighborhood, looking to rezone us for high occupancy skyscrapers? When is it enough? Should we aim for population of 5m in SF? What about 50m?