Yimby founder “denial of service” attack on SF(sfstandard.com)
sfstandard.com
Yimby founder “denial of service” attack on SF
https://sfstandard.com/housing-development/yimbyism-ate-the-entire-world-except-its-own-backyard/
3 comments
> “It’s a fantasy that somehow more supply will start driving the price of housing down,” said Joseph Smooke
San Francisco, a city so exceptional it doesn't even follow supply and demand!
San Francisco, a city so exceptional it doesn't even follow supply and demand!
They can build housing that they rent out for below market rate. They can't build housing that costs below market rate to construct.
Depends on how you define market rate construction costs. If the market rate is defined as median cost per unit area of new construction (within defined timeframe and geo), then by definition half of your sampled construction projects came in below market.
The issue is that the red tape, delays, and fees add a good ~350K per unit[1] in additional costs atop the land and actual construction costs. So let's say that they want to build affordable housing that they sell to someone for 300K. It will cost 750K to build. So that's a 350K subsidy. With a fund of $100 million devoted to affordable housing, that is about 285 units, added to a stock of 300,000 units in the city.
Now, who will be the lucky 285? In a city like SF, which is run by a machine, those who get these subsidies and which plots of land they are allocated involves a system of kickbacks and political connections that again makes it less likely that the housing is built in areas that need it the most. In other words, you'll need to pay a bit to get that 350K gift. And you'll need to be connected. This generally happens when cities give away something of great value, but it happens especially in a city like SF. But in either case, those extra 285 units aren't going to change prices in San Francisco very much, even at a cost of 100 million dedicated to building affordable housing. I'd wager that most politicians in SF would love the chance to give away $100 million, because they each are connected to a patronage network of donors and organizers, and these networks are sustained with gifts such as this. But it wont solve the housing issues.
The problem is that city needs to make it much easier to build there. It's a nightmare of permits, waiting, talking to multiple agencies. A huge mess.
I have a friend who owns a coffee shop there, and he wanted to paint the counter. Well, the health department came in, and the building inspection dept came in, and the health guy said the paint was too porous, and that he needed to use a different paint, and then afterwards another guy came in and said it was the wrong paint, and he should have used the one he chose originally. And between these visits is months of waiting. Each time they come, it was a few hundred bucks, then more waiting. Then another visit. When I left SF, he was still waiting for permission to reopen with the new paint.
Now imagine you are a developer building an entire apartment building. So they need to massively streamline this process, and this takes away power from administrators, which is why it will be opposed by politicians, even as the option to give away the 100 million, which wont make a difference, will be supported.
This is what the NIMBYs are up against, and I hope they are clever enough to take the machine on.
[1] see https://www.bayareacouncil.org/uncategorized/new-data-highli... for more info
Now, who will be the lucky 285? In a city like SF, which is run by a machine, those who get these subsidies and which plots of land they are allocated involves a system of kickbacks and political connections that again makes it less likely that the housing is built in areas that need it the most. In other words, you'll need to pay a bit to get that 350K gift. And you'll need to be connected. This generally happens when cities give away something of great value, but it happens especially in a city like SF. But in either case, those extra 285 units aren't going to change prices in San Francisco very much, even at a cost of 100 million dedicated to building affordable housing. I'd wager that most politicians in SF would love the chance to give away $100 million, because they each are connected to a patronage network of donors and organizers, and these networks are sustained with gifts such as this. But it wont solve the housing issues.
The problem is that city needs to make it much easier to build there. It's a nightmare of permits, waiting, talking to multiple agencies. A huge mess.
I have a friend who owns a coffee shop there, and he wanted to paint the counter. Well, the health department came in, and the building inspection dept came in, and the health guy said the paint was too porous, and that he needed to use a different paint, and then afterwards another guy came in and said it was the wrong paint, and he should have used the one he chose originally. And between these visits is months of waiting. Each time they come, it was a few hundred bucks, then more waiting. Then another visit. When I left SF, he was still waiting for permission to reopen with the new paint.
Now imagine you are a developer building an entire apartment building. So they need to massively streamline this process, and this takes away power from administrators, which is why it will be opposed by politicians, even as the option to give away the 100 million, which wont make a difference, will be supported.
This is what the NIMBYs are up against, and I hope they are clever enough to take the machine on.
[1] see https://www.bayareacouncil.org/uncategorized/new-data-highli... for more info
Go Sonja! It would be nice if cities could have rent controls or zoning but not both-it would eliminate a lot of conflicts over building new housing
They are working on more aggressive tactics to overwhelm sf city officials
Can't wait to see how San Francisco's government, which spends $2M to build a toilet, can build below-market-rate housing.