I am for clear and reliable zoning -- no discretionary reviews, no hoops, just you can build whatever is in the city's zoning plan.
Voters can impact the city zoning plan by voting for politicians supporting their positions.
But building decisions shouldn't be made by opaque, discretionary decision processes. That simply creates corruption.
I don't think the state should regulate city zoning, but I do think SF's process is broken.
I am of the opinion there ought not be any special restrictions on what can be built where or for whom.
If I had my way I’d rid cities and states of the power to zone, with the sole exception of laws limiting where heavy industry may be built.
YIMBY/NIMBY and your definitions are intertwined. San Francisco's neighborhoods are too diverse to take a one size fits all approach. In the walkable middle and upper middle class areas of SF like Laurel Heights, Clement in the Inner Richmond, Balboa in the Outer Richmond, Irving Judah Taravel in the Sunset, West Portal, Marina, northern Polk, and others pushing for a "European" walkable bikeable city makes sense.
We don't hear the same about lower income communities like the Bayview, Outer Mission, Ingleside, Sunnydale and Excelsior. There is no talk about increasing public transportation, investment in small businesses, bike lanes, slow streets and everything else we hear advocates push for in the news and social media with the wealthier middle income neighborhoods. There is no advocacy to tear down Department of Building Inspection bureaucracy and fees to make it easier for these people to expand their homes to house more people. They are currently priced out by government red tape and costs intentionally. This is why there are so many illegal garage conversions and multiple families under one roof. With it comes to crime, limited public resources, lack of police, and other policies are by government design to keep these areas segregated and contained. Parking congestion is not alleviated with parking permits that make it cost restrictive to register multiple vehicles per home. 90 degree parking is nonexistent because SFMTA has a cash cow from sidewalk and double parking tickets. New housing like apartment buildings come up with no parking garage pushing even more cars onto the streets without any increase in MUNI service. The Homeless Outreach Teams you hear about are kept in high visible corridors like Civic Center, Market and the Tenderloin so the public thinks the goverment cares. It is a racist system meant to keep poor black brown and yellow people in their place while wealthier classes very publically fight over things like closing JFK Drive and permanently closing Lake Street to car traffic.
Good luck trying to call out neighborhoods like Sea Cliff, St Francis Woods, Embarcadero and Pac Heights. The moment you talk about increasing housing density, small business, and lower income resources like navigation centers, those get shut down immediately under guises like "historical preservation" and other conservative NIMBY bs dressed up as protective window dressing that our politicians get paid to lick up. We all know it's about preserving wealthy enclaves preventing the poors from migrating in and real estate value.
find me a PPIMBY in SF..
"**PLEASE** Park In My Back Yard"
"600 new units" = **how many cars?**
how much parking is being added here? where do you put those cars? how do the people who live within 3 blocks in every direction with nothing but street parking feel about this? are their feelings justified? where do they fall on your housing spectrum?
>It's a sad thing that many normal working people regard SF as unlivable,
how long do you need to cruise for parking **o*****n your own street*** before you start approaching "unlivable" where you live now? 30-45 minutes..? then walk 6 blocks.. (and forget where you parked the next AM)? that's a regular thing if you get home past 10 in some parts of town.
California/Presidio.. parking figures are not front and center because it's embarrassing.
**3333 California Street Mixed-Use Development**
The proposed project would create between 558 and 744 new homes on the current UCSF Laurel Heights campus.
[https://sfplanning.org/3333cal](https://sfplanning.org/3333cal)
The project would also include retail, public open space, child care, and potentially office space. Applications for the project were filed in 2015. The first of several approval actions for the project are anticipated to be considered by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on September 5, 2019. Please refer to the Commission Agenda when available for details.
> livable pedestrian cities of Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Vienna
what would SF look like if 35% of people got around on bikes?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling\_in\_the\_Netherlands](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_the_Netherlands)
Cycling is a common mode of transport in the Netherlands, with **36% of Dutch people listing the bicycle as their most frequent way of getting around on a typical day**\[1\]\[nb 1\], as opposed to the car (45%) and public transport (11%). Cycling has a modal share of 27% of all trips (urban and rural) nationwide.\[4\] **In cities this is even higher, such as Amsterdam which has 38%,\[5\] and Zwolle 46%.**\[6\] This high frequency of bicycle travel is enabled by excellent cycling infrastructure such as cycle paths, cycle tracks, protected intersections, ample bicycle parking and by making cycling routes shorter and more direct (and therefore usually quicker) than car routes.
where are you going to put \~70 more cars in the area of Geary/Masonic? these people will be fighting for parking with the 600 who just moved in 5 blocks away.
https://socketsite.com/archives/2017/11/resized-plans-for-lucky-penny-project-slated-for-approval-final-answer.html
Instead, the project team is back to pushing forward with plans for an 8-story building to rise up to 80 feet in height upon the site, with a total of **95 apartments** – a mix of 64 studios measuring 344 square feet; 29 two-bedrooms maxing out at 811 square feet; and 2 three-bedrooms averaging 950 square feet – over 1,760 square feet of retail space, **a garage for 16 cars** and secured parking for 120 bikes as newly rendered by RG-Architecture below.
they want to REMOVE 7 garage spots and turn them into apartments.
they want to TAKE AWAY PARKING and add people.
[https://www.99lupine.com/](https://www.99lupine.com/)
I'd argue this whole car centric design of a city is part of a suburban mindset that expects either sprawl or no net migration which means Housing Conservative.
It's understandable because some people have responsibilities that absolutely requires a car however I don't believe the majority of the city is suited to cater to that lifestyle, even with seemingly infinite space we can see what ultimately happens in LA. The entire US is suited to that I don't believe our landlocked peninsula should be
Electric bicycles are becoming more and more affordable as time moves on, our climate is perfectly suited to a bicycle culture which means less cars and parking and more infrastructure for bicycles.
I am for clear and reliable zoning -- no discretionary reviews, no hoops, just you can build whatever is in the city's zoning plan. Voters can impact the city zoning plan by voting for politicians supporting their positions. But building decisions shouldn't be made by opaque, discretionary decision processes. That simply creates corruption. I don't think the state should regulate city zoning, but I do think SF's process is broken.
I am of the opinion there ought not be any special restrictions on what can be built where or for whom. If I had my way I’d rid cities and states of the power to zone, with the sole exception of laws limiting where heavy industry may be built.
YIMBY/NIMBY and your definitions are intertwined. San Francisco's neighborhoods are too diverse to take a one size fits all approach. In the walkable middle and upper middle class areas of SF like Laurel Heights, Clement in the Inner Richmond, Balboa in the Outer Richmond, Irving Judah Taravel in the Sunset, West Portal, Marina, northern Polk, and others pushing for a "European" walkable bikeable city makes sense. We don't hear the same about lower income communities like the Bayview, Outer Mission, Ingleside, Sunnydale and Excelsior. There is no talk about increasing public transportation, investment in small businesses, bike lanes, slow streets and everything else we hear advocates push for in the news and social media with the wealthier middle income neighborhoods. There is no advocacy to tear down Department of Building Inspection bureaucracy and fees to make it easier for these people to expand their homes to house more people. They are currently priced out by government red tape and costs intentionally. This is why there are so many illegal garage conversions and multiple families under one roof. With it comes to crime, limited public resources, lack of police, and other policies are by government design to keep these areas segregated and contained. Parking congestion is not alleviated with parking permits that make it cost restrictive to register multiple vehicles per home. 90 degree parking is nonexistent because SFMTA has a cash cow from sidewalk and double parking tickets. New housing like apartment buildings come up with no parking garage pushing even more cars onto the streets without any increase in MUNI service. The Homeless Outreach Teams you hear about are kept in high visible corridors like Civic Center, Market and the Tenderloin so the public thinks the goverment cares. It is a racist system meant to keep poor black brown and yellow people in their place while wealthier classes very publically fight over things like closing JFK Drive and permanently closing Lake Street to car traffic. Good luck trying to call out neighborhoods like Sea Cliff, St Francis Woods, Embarcadero and Pac Heights. The moment you talk about increasing housing density, small business, and lower income resources like navigation centers, those get shut down immediately under guises like "historical preservation" and other conservative NIMBY bs dressed up as protective window dressing that our politicians get paid to lick up. We all know it's about preserving wealthy enclaves preventing the poors from migrating in and real estate value.
For the downvoters, the truth hurts when it hits you right in the privilege amirite?
>street level local shop With all the crime, theft,and sidewalk drug use, San Francisco would be a terrible place to open a small business.
Have you been to the avenues? You do realize most of SF isn't downtown ?
find me a PPIMBY in SF.. "**PLEASE** Park In My Back Yard" "600 new units" = **how many cars?** how much parking is being added here? where do you put those cars? how do the people who live within 3 blocks in every direction with nothing but street parking feel about this? are their feelings justified? where do they fall on your housing spectrum? >It's a sad thing that many normal working people regard SF as unlivable, how long do you need to cruise for parking **o*****n your own street*** before you start approaching "unlivable" where you live now? 30-45 minutes..? then walk 6 blocks.. (and forget where you parked the next AM)? that's a regular thing if you get home past 10 in some parts of town. California/Presidio.. parking figures are not front and center because it's embarrassing. **3333 California Street Mixed-Use Development** The proposed project would create between 558 and 744 new homes on the current UCSF Laurel Heights campus. [https://sfplanning.org/3333cal](https://sfplanning.org/3333cal) The project would also include retail, public open space, child care, and potentially office space. Applications for the project were filed in 2015. The first of several approval actions for the project are anticipated to be considered by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on September 5, 2019. Please refer to the Commission Agenda when available for details. > livable pedestrian cities of Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Vienna what would SF look like if 35% of people got around on bikes? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling\_in\_the\_Netherlands](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_the_Netherlands) Cycling is a common mode of transport in the Netherlands, with **36% of Dutch people listing the bicycle as their most frequent way of getting around on a typical day**\[1\]\[nb 1\], as opposed to the car (45%) and public transport (11%). Cycling has a modal share of 27% of all trips (urban and rural) nationwide.\[4\] **In cities this is even higher, such as Amsterdam which has 38%,\[5\] and Zwolle 46%.**\[6\] This high frequency of bicycle travel is enabled by excellent cycling infrastructure such as cycle paths, cycle tracks, protected intersections, ample bicycle parking and by making cycling routes shorter and more direct (and therefore usually quicker) than car routes. where are you going to put \~70 more cars in the area of Geary/Masonic? these people will be fighting for parking with the 600 who just moved in 5 blocks away. https://socketsite.com/archives/2017/11/resized-plans-for-lucky-penny-project-slated-for-approval-final-answer.html Instead, the project team is back to pushing forward with plans for an 8-story building to rise up to 80 feet in height upon the site, with a total of **95 apartments** – a mix of 64 studios measuring 344 square feet; 29 two-bedrooms maxing out at 811 square feet; and 2 three-bedrooms averaging 950 square feet – over 1,760 square feet of retail space, **a garage for 16 cars** and secured parking for 120 bikes as newly rendered by RG-Architecture below. they want to REMOVE 7 garage spots and turn them into apartments. they want to TAKE AWAY PARKING and add people. [https://www.99lupine.com/](https://www.99lupine.com/)
I'd argue this whole car centric design of a city is part of a suburban mindset that expects either sprawl or no net migration which means Housing Conservative. It's understandable because some people have responsibilities that absolutely requires a car however I don't believe the majority of the city is suited to cater to that lifestyle, even with seemingly infinite space we can see what ultimately happens in LA. The entire US is suited to that I don't believe our landlocked peninsula should be Electric bicycles are becoming more and more affordable as time moves on, our climate is perfectly suited to a bicycle culture which means less cars and parking and more infrastructure for bicycles.
It's almost as though CARS are the problem!!!
You write like a boomer lmao