3524 replies to this topic

[Victoria Watcher]

The headline sounds pretty promising: San Francisco is on the verge of abolishing single-family zoning, and will soon allow 4-plexes across the city and up to 6 units on corner lots. It is also clear recognition that, “hey, we have a housing problem and should probably figure out a way to increase overall supply.”

 

Unfortunately, when you look at the policy details, you’ll see that this is likely to be more symbolic than effective. What is being proposed is to take the 40% of San Francisco’s land area that is zoned exclusively for single-family houses and upzone it to allow for duplexes on an as-of-right basis.

 

And then, if you happen to have owned the property for at least 5 years — or inherited it from a family member that did — you can apply for a special “density exception” from the city. This would allow you to build 6 units on corner lots and 4 units on all remaining mid-block lots.

 

But here’s the other thing: if you are granted this density exception, the additional units (beyond your as-of-right two) will be subject to rent control. So the important question here is about whether or not anyone will end up building more than luxury duplexes and, if they do, will there be enough scale to produce a meaningful impact.

 

 

https://www.sfchroni..._eid=d3c3a20417

 

 

San Francisco plans to end single-family zoning. Here’s why housing advocates aren’t happy with the law

 

San Francisco plans to get rid of single-family zoning and instead allow fourplexes in every neighborhood and six-unit homes on all corner lots, a change long sought by housing development advocates.

 

But champions of greater housing density are worried that San Francisco’s legislation might result in very few new homes being built. They fear that restrictive provisions limiting who can take advantage of the new permissions and how fast property owners can get their projects approved will stymie new construction.

 

__________________

 

Todd David, executive director of the Housing Action Coalition, said he thought the original version of the bill wouldn’t have much of an impact, but the amendments made that even more true.

 

“They took the original policy they knew would create little housing and they added some additional bells and whistles to ensure that it will create very little to no housing,” David said.

 

Additionally, the ordinance allows San Francisco to get around a key provision of SB9.

 

The 2021 state law lets homeowners who want to add extra units get approval through a streamlined process that bypasses city officials’ ability to use their discretion to reject housing developments. But the law applies only to areas zoned for single-family homes, so San Francisco’s rezoning of the whole city would make SB9 no longer apply to the permit approval process.

 

The San Francisco legislation’s end-run around SB9 was cited by Safaí and Dorsey when they explained to their colleagues why they were voting against the local measure.

 

“I believe it’s too small of a step,” said Safaí, who had proposed his own fourplex ordinance that was not incorporated into Mandelman’s.

 

_________________________

 

Supervisor Aaron Peskin, who supported the ordinance, said Tuesday that he was “actually kind of shocked that there is opposition to this.” He and Preston both said they believed the real reason for the resistance was that many of those in favor of more housing development also oppose rent control.

 

“Let’s be clear: They hate rent control and that is why they are opposing a bill that increases density in San Francisco,” Peskin said.

 

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 03 July 2022 - 02:14 AM.

[Nparker]

Property owners are never going to accept rent control unless property taxes are equally frozen.

[Victoria Watcher]

Property owners are never going to accept rent control unless property taxes are equally frozen.

 

Well, we effectively have blanket rent control here now.  Except at tenant turn-over, of course.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 03 July 2022 - 05:21 AM.

[Nparker]

We also have lots of local rental property owners getting out of the landlord business because of our version of rent control.

[spanky123]

Not only do we have rent controls to think about but as Ontario just demonstrated, we have rent controls capped way below inflation. Even then the NDP thinks rent increases should be 0.

We is going to want to build rental housing when out of the gate you having any profit you make decline?!

[Nparker]

...Who is going to want to build rental housing when out of the gate you having any profit you make decline?!

Our national and provincial governments, whose goal is to become the sole landlords for all Canadian renters.

[Barrrister]

They are going to follow the English model of providing housing for everyone. It should make a handful of developers rich.  One should consider getting out of the cities if one can.

[Victoria Watcher]

They are going to follow the English model of providing housing for everyone. It should make a handful of developers rich. One should consider getting out of the cities if one can.

Although with “right to buy” schemes the amount of UK people in social housing has actually fallen since the 80’s. To about 17%.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 04 July 2022 - 05:28 AM.

[JohnsonStBridge]

Stephen Andrew has launched his own survey for the missing middle. Survey options for living status include home owner, duplex owner, home renter, duplex renter, and condo renter. For a survey about zoning to expand missing housing types it is telling that no options are provided for townhouse owners or townhouse renters as well as condo owners. And the "home" option is not a technical housing type like a "single detached house" would be. The survey asks if you support the "Missing Middle Initiate". All while requiring email and mobile contact information with pre-checked boxes to be contacted by text message and email updates.

 

Hopefully Stephen Andrew does a better job protecting mailing lists than he does at designing surveys or spelling.

[Nparker]

Sounds like the typical CoV survey which are usually created in such a way as to reinforce preconceived results.

[Barrrister]

Do you have a link to the survey?

[Jacques Cadé]

Survey is here: https://www.stephena..._housing_survey

Says it closes on July 13 ... the day after the City's Missing Middle information session, but the day before the first reading of the Missing Middle bylaw.

[Barrrister]

Stephen:

 

This is an unfair survey and it is the type of thing Lisa Helps did all the time. I am disappointed in you.

 

To respond to the survey, I am forced to pick and state one of four housing priorities

but I am opposed to all four. None of them are my priority but you survey, in order for me to give an opinion or respond forces me to give a false answer. 

 

I am hoping that you will agree and throw this question out. At the least there should have been a none of the above as an answer. 

 

I suspect that this is just a continuation of city surveys designed to give the results Politicians want. I really hope that I am wrong.

 

I know that you read these comments so I am expecting an answer.

[Barrrister]

I am beginning to think that Stephen Andrews is another Lisa Helps in disguise. I am very disappointed.

[Sparky]

Give him a chance to answer you.

[Barrrister]

I listen to everything he wrote and his comments. Reviewed his survey that was very Lisa Helps like. Sorry, I am disappointed in a number of his positions. I have been more than fair in reviewing his positions.

[JimV]

Somebody sent me a link from his survey page.  When I clicked it took me to his volunteer page.  No survey.

[Nparker]

...When I clicked it took me to his volunteer page.  No survey.

You can bypass the volunteer page and go to the survey.

[Barrrister]

Note: I think it is the third or fourth question that forces you to pick one of four priorities whether or not those are you priorities. These is a typical ploy used by Lisa Helps in her surveys. May want to comment that there is not at least a none of the above even if that might not be your choice. I was really hope for something different that what we have been getting fro this council.

[JimV]

You can bypass the volunteer page and go to the survey.

I just checked it again this morning and now it takes you to the survey.  Yesterday it didn’t.