Well, good.<p>The state level regulation is made to force these dysfunctional city halls to get their ducks in a row or face builders remedy.<p>50 years on, it's clear zoning regulations being determined at the municipal level is toxic, because regulation gets captured to enrich existing land owners at the expense of everyone else.
The stupid thing is that the groups that reflexively oppose private housing in San Francisco (namely REP Coalition, CCHO, SFTU) chose “don’t demolish rent controlled housing” as their rallying cry for why they are calling to oppose this ordinance that streamlines new apartment buildings, which sometimes requires tearing down an old building. Which means that they are foregoing the Costa-Hawkins exemption in SB 330 (2019) that allows and requires demolished rent controlled apartment units to be replaced by <i>brand new rent controlled units</i> (which are the type of rental units that they like). They are foregoing win-win solutions due to extreme tribalism and economic illiteracy.
So when the builder's remedy kicks in, is the city mandated to build the necessary water/sewer/electrical infrastructure for those buildings? Or is that the builder's responsibility?<p>Who pays? (Current or future residents? Over what timeframe?)<p>How much new infrastructure is required for a 50 story tower like this proposal? <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/tower-housing-ocean-beach-18507790.php" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/tower-housing-ocean-b...</a>
Isn't the usa like Canada in that cities don't exist in the constitutional structure, they are basically creations of the state/province and as such can be wiped away with a simple ruling from the state/provincial legislature? Isn't that what one should do in this kind of situation, just pass legislation that revokes the current body's authority, fire all the committee members/representatives/whatever until you get down to base government, put in a transitional government committee on top of that that passes all new and improved ordinances and ensures their implementation before going to a vote 2-4 years down the road to replace themselves after the new status quo is entrenched? This would have the added benefit of getting the rest of the cities in line to do their jobs so they avoid the same fate.
Perhaps a bit tangential but something I've been thinking about recently is that new-borns are born without any property. They don't have any rent-controlled apartments. On the other hand they do have equal rights to the commons. This means that if the commons is divided up and sold it results in an increased wealth disparity and power imbalance between generations. And the same goes for semi-permanent privileges. That wealth can in turn be used to gain more power and influence over policy potentially leading to an even bigger disparity.<p>If that spiral is left unchecked it seems you get some kind of gerontocratic failure mode of democracy.
I understand why the state is applying pressure, and SF’s building and planning departments are embarrassingly dysfunctional and corrupt.<p>Still, I firmly believe that a democracy works better when there is local control. San Francisco is already the most densely populated city in California, with three times the density of LA. If it is the wish of the people of SF to go slow on development, is that really unreasonable?