Planner and professor says massive increase in density and new housing didn’t bring costs down; in fact, costs are way up
Patrick Condon was once what they now call a Yimby. A landscape architect, urban planner, and professor at the University of British Columbia, he worked with hundreds of others to build a sustainable, affordable city in Vancouver, BC.
For years, Vancouver was a case study for city planning. The San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association used to take local officials on tours of the Canadian city, talking about the “slender towers” and grand amenities that they said come with orderly but aggressive growth.
In fact, Condon told me, Vancouver has allowed and seen built more new housing compared to its population than any other city in North America. And it was all what’s known as “infill housing,” not suburban sprawl.
So, if the Yimby doctrine is right, and removing “obstacles” to growth and adding more infill housing results in prices coming down, Vancouver “ought to be the most affordable city in North America,” Condon said.
Except it’s not; it’s the most expensive. He has 30 years of solid data: The Yimby approach didn’t work. It backfired… (more)
If Balaji Srinivasan is any guide, then the Silicon Valley plutocrats are definitely not OK.
To fully grasp the current situation in San Francisco, where venture capitalists are trying to take control of City Hall, you must listen to Balaji Srinivasan. Before you do, steel yourself for what’s to come: A normal person could easily mistake his rambling train wrecks of thought for a crackpot’s ravings, but influential Silicon Valley billionaires regard him as a genius.
“Balaji has the highest rate of output per minute of good new ideas of anybody I’ve ever met,” wrote Marc Andreessen, co-founder of the V.C. firm Andreessen-Horowitz, in a blurb for Balaji’s 2022 book, The Network State: How to Start a New Country. The book outlines a plan for tech plutocrats to exit democracy and establish new sovereign territories. I mentioned Balaji’s ideas in two previous stories about Network State–related efforts in California—a proposed tech colony called California Forever and the tech-funded campaign to capture San Francisco’s government.
Balaji, a 43-year-old Long Island native who goes by his first name, has a solid Valley pedigree: He earned multiple degrees from Stanford University, founded multiple startups, became a partner at Andreessen-Horowitz and then served as chief technology officer at Coinbase. He is also the leader of a cultish and increasingly strident neo-reactionary tech political movement that sees American democracy as an enemy. In 2013, a New York Times story headlined “Silicon Valley Roused by Secession Call” described a speech in which he “told a group of young entrepreneurs that the United States had become ‘the Microsoft of nations’: outdated and obsolescent.”
“The [speech below] won roars from the audience at Y Combinator, a leading start-up incubator,” reported the Times. Balaji paints a bleak picture of a dystopian future in a U.S. in chaos and decline, but his prophecies sometimes fall short. Last year, he lost $1 million in a public bet after wrongly predicting a massive surge in the price of Bitcoin.
Still, his appetite for autocracy is bottomless. Last October, Balaji hosted the first-ever Network State Conference. Garry Tan—the current Y Combinator CEO who’s attempting to spearhead a political takeover of San Francisco—participated in an interview with Balaji and cast the effort as part of the Network State movement. Tan, who made headlines in January after tweeting “die slow motherfuckers” at local progressive politicians, frames his campaign as an experiment in “moderate” politics. But in a podcast interview one month before the conference, Balaji laid out a more disturbing and extreme vision…
“Mission Local besmirches the city with unbalanced coverage that only emboldens Preston, Peskin, Chan,” he wrote in November, name-checking three of the elected officials upon whom he would later wish a “slow death.”…
Amid his drunken tweet scandal, Tan paused such attacks. He hired a public relations consultant, apologized, and ceased sending out caustic tweets—temporarily. Then, on March 29, the Times published a favorable profile of him. Written by former Chronicle columnist Heather Knight, it characterized him as a “middle-of-the-road” Democrat agitating for “common sense” ideas. Tan came across as contrite and humble, a civic-minded centimillionaire who let his passion for political change get the best of him. “Mr. Tan has tried to learn from his online mess—or says he has,” wrote Knight. “In person, he speaks kindly and calmly and smiles often, frequently bowing to people while making a prayer gesture with his hands.”
Progressives groaned at what they saw as a conspicuous whitewashing of Tan’s behavior. Tan proudly shared the piece on social media. He has nevertheless returned to his old antics. “SF legacy media is dishonest and lies to you,” he wrote to his 428,000 followers on April 1.…
In the aftermath of Tan’s death threat tweets, both the Chronicle and the Standard hesitated for at least a day before publishing full stories. For a moment, it seemed unclear whether they would cover it at all. Yet despite the local media’s generally fair approach and the puffy Times glow-up, Tan continues to rage against the press. Nothing less than absolute control and fealty seems acceptable to the Network State types.
“Do not hire PR,” tweeted Balaji on April 4, days after Tan’s P.R.-wrangled Times profile. “They want to ‘train’ you to talk to journos. But journos hate you! So this is an obsolete model. Instead, just hire influencers. Build your own channel. And go direct.”
These guys are serving up a new brand of Kool-Aide to their followers. Just how far they will go remains to be seen. How far some of our less friendly politicians will bend. To their will is another big question. If they intend to dominate, they will have to curb their obvious appetite for power and revenge long enough to slip into the mire and mingle unseen among the political influencers. This is not very likely to happen soon in the Bay Area. They are too obvious to hide here. They may have better luck elsewhere.
Several efforts to minimize the power and influence of the California Coastal Commission have stalled…
Housing advocates thought that this was going to be the year when they finally cracked the California Coast.
In early spring, Democratic lawmakers, and the Yes In My Backyard activists backing them, rolled out a series of bills aimed at making it easier to build apartments and accessory dwelling units along California’s highly regulated coast and to make it more difficult for the independent and influential California Coastal Commission to slow or block housing projects. The 15-member group oversees almost all of the state’s 840 miles of coastline, a stretch of land that just under a million Californians call home.
The pro-construction push built off last year’s success for the coalition when the Legislature passed a major housing law and — breaking from long-standing legislative tradition — did not include a carveout for the coast. This year’s pack of bills was meant to cement and build off a new political reality in which the 48-year-old Coastal Commission no longer has quite so much say over housing policy.
Fast forward to mid-August and those new bills are either dead or so severely watered down that they no longer carry the promise of a more built-out coastline. Whatever happened last year, the California Coastal Commission is still a force to be reckoned with…(more)
San Francisco – This morning, the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA) voted to pull Regional Measure 4, the $20 billion dollar regional bond measure, off the November ballot. Gus Mattammal, President of the 20 Billion Reasons campaign to defeat the bond measure in November, hailed the move.
Said Mattammal, “This decision is a win for Bay Area taxpayers, and a win for affordable housing. To address housing affordability in a meaningful way, we have to address root causes, not soak taxpayers for billions of dollars at a time using bonds that would waste two thirds of the revenue on interest and overhead while barely making a dent in the issue.”
The 20 Billion Reasons campaign brought together Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents in a single campaign, a rarity in recent times, but a necessity. Said Mattammal, “Actually working on the root causes of the housing crisis in California, a crisis created by our legislature and the corporate interests to which they are beholden, is politically difficult. It’s much easier to simply raise taxes. That’s why it’s so important for voters to say ‘no’ to deeply flawed proposals such as Regional Measure 4: every time we do say no, it helps create the political conditions to work on the problem in a meaningful way.”
Though Regional Measure 4 is off the ballot for now, many other expensive proposals remain on the ballot, and the $20 Billion Reasons campaign team is excited to regroup and consider the best way forward to help ensure that Bay Area taxpayers are getting real solutions for the taxes they pay.
About Gus Mattammal – Gus is an entrepreneur and educator who has lived and worked in the Bay Area for over 17 years. He is proud to work with the committed Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents who seek to ensure that the public’s money is wisely spent. Learn more at: 20billionreasons.com
TRI-VALLEY — Thirteen Bay Area residents opposed to a $20 billion regional housing bond measure filed a lawsuit last week that alleges the question to be placed on November ballots as Regional Measure 4 (RM4) is slanted to prejudice voters to approve it.
The group contends the official name of the measure, “Bay Area Affordable Plan,” is deceptive and the ballot question voters will consider contains a series of phrases that are not found in the language of the measure. The residents’ group is asking the court to rename the measure to “Bay Area Affordable Housing Bond,” because they contend it will cost residents more in property taxes.
“This lawsuit is all about the 75 words maximum that will be in the Regional Measure 4 ballot question,” said Jason Bezis, an attorney for the residents, a list of electors for the Nov. 5 election, members of county taxpayers’ associations, and a former San Jose City Council member.
Bezis’ office filed a petition in Santa Clara Superior Court on Aug. 8, demanding it be rewritten. The filing came six days after sending a “pre-litigation” letter to the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA), which placed the measure on the ballot.The lawsuit targets BAHFA and election officials in Alameda, Santa Clara, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Solano, and Sonoma counties, along with the city and county of San Francisco… (more)
Housing Accountability Unit’s Efforts Lead to San Francisco’s Progress in Removing Barriers to Housing Production
San Francisco Has Implemented Key Actions Required by HCD’s Housing Policy and Practice Review
In response to last year’s release of the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review (PPR), San Francisco has implemented significant reforms that will make it easier to build housing at all income levels.
The PPR – a first of its kind investigation into a local government’s barriers to housing production – required San Francisco to implement 18 required actions beginning immediately and through 2026 that resolve inconsistencies with state law, accelerate housing production, and reduce barriers beyond the strong commitments already being made through San Francisco’s 6th Cycle Housing Element.
Since the release of the PPR, HCD has continuously monitored San Francisco’s progress. As a result of this technical assistance from HCD and San Francisco’s actions, they are currently up to date on required actions and, in some cases, implementing actions ahead of schedule. The PPR accelerated the passage of reforms already underway and supported the early completion of several actions proposed in San Francisco’s Housing Element.
These policy and practice changes can now begin to translate into real impact and results for development in San Francisco.
Some of the most significant reforms San Francisco has made to address their required actions include:
Approving the Constraints Reduction Ordinance, which was proposed shortly after the adoption of the Housing Element and was passed following HCD technical assistance
Restructuring processes so that developments that already received planning approval cannot be subject to subsequent building permit appeals
Reducing procedural hurdles for code-compliant projects
Removing hearing requirements for most State Density Bonus Law requests.
Together, these actions help cut red tape and uncertainty, clarify opaque processes, and ensure compliance with state housing laws. For a more detailed summary of these actions, click here.
These changes represent important steps in the right direction and reflect a commitment to achieving a new status quo in San Francisco. Nevertheless, to ensure full implementation of the actions in both the PPR and the housing element – and to achieve housing production in San Francisco that truly meets the need – HCD will continue to provide ongoing support and monitor San Francisco’s progress on their 6 remaining PPR actions as they come due.
By staying on track with these remaining items, San Francisco will continue to demonstrate its commitment to facilitating housing production at all income levels and ensure compliance with its obligations.
Everyone in Canada will soon be able to afford a home. We just need investors to build more and rates to be cut, right? Anyone that can do basic math has probably been skeptical of that narrative and with good reason—even the people making those statements don’t believe it. Internal messages from the CMHC make very brief but important notes that challenge the exact narrative its leadership has been publicly spinning. More supply won’t bring down home prices, and lower rates won’t make them more affordable. Higher prices will make more supply feasible and lower rates will help boost prices.
CMHC Internal Chats Claim Higher Prices Will Improve Supply: The public is frequently told that housing is expensive because of a shortage. People will often say, “it’s simple supply and demand.” Messages shared between the agency’s communications staff and economists in 2021 show the circumstances are a little more complicated.
“Higher price level will improve development feasibility, so starts will remain elevated over the forecast horizon,” read a suggested point discussing a released forecast…
Central Banks Lower Rates To Raise Prices, Not Improve Affordabilty: Understanding how interest rates work also provides a little more context in this area. The Bank of Canada (BoC) is in charge of maintaining an ideal decay in the value of money (i.e. inflation). Their primary and most important tool to do this are interest rates…
CMHC Attributes Higher Prices To Cheap Mortgages In Passing: Higher prices are often blamed on population growth, especially in Canada with its recent record surge since 2022. Home prices made a record move in January 2022, but 2021 was the lowest annual population growth for the country going back to at least the 1970s. That was also the year Canada was completing 18 homes per person the population grew by. …(more)
Stephen Punwasi: Co-Founder and chief data nerd at Better Dwelling. Named a top influencer in finance and risk by Thomson-Reuters.
The more we hear about YIMBY economic theories they more evidence we find that they do not pan out as promised.
State assembly candidate Manuel Noris-Barrera was among a number of candidates who spoke in opposition to the initiative before joining the car parade to protest the ballot measure proposed by Supervisors Joel Engardio, that would permanently close the Great Highway to cars. The event was organized by the Chinese Community that has been overwhelmed by street project and parking restrictions all over the city
It was a chilly, windy Thursday morning — good weather for getting mad. Denise Selleck drove to a parking lot near Ocean Beach to meet up with other motorists who had gathered to fume before forming a protest caravan that would take over the Great Highway.
Selleck was one of dozens of protesters opposing the potential permanent closure of the Great Highway and its transformation into a park. Located on the west end of the Outer Sunset, the coastal road is open to cars during weekdays and closed on weekends.
“I’ve never felt as dismissed and disrespected as I did,” Selleck, a 67-year-old retired teacher at City College, told The Standard. She said keeping the Great Highway open to cars is safer than rerouting them to other roads in the Sunset. ..(more)
Voters feel that SFMTA and Rec and Park projects that re-direct traffic are largely to blame for SFMTA’s financial woes. Everything they do to diminish traffic on major thorough-fares creates a need to spend more money on mitigations on the side streets that would be not be necessary if SFMTA just managed MUNI instead of working to remove cars.
As the streets become more difficult to navigate residents and businesses leave. The destroy to “build back better” theme has lost whatever luster it once had. City Hall needs to stop the destruction and maintain what is left for those who are still here.
CP&DR News Briefs July 16, 2024: AB 9 Appeal; Land Use Ballot Propositions; SB 423 Streamlining; and More
By Ella Morner-Ritt and Alexandra Friedman
July 16, 2024
Bonta Appeals Ruling Exempting Charter Cities from SB 9 Attorney General Rob Bonta is appealing a Superior Court decision that halted the enforcement of Senate Bill 9 in charter cities. SB 9 took effect in 2023, allowing subdivision of parcels traditionally zoned for single-family homes into configurations accommodating duplexes and fourplexes. The law faced opposition five charter cities asserting it improperly overrides local zoning in charter cities, though supporters argue it’s crucial for addressing the statewide housing crisis. Del Mar, along with four Los Angeles County cities, challenged SB 9 in court, contending it violates the state constitution by not effectively promoting affordable housing without interfering excessively with local government. The judge’s ruling sided with this argument on April 22, prompting Bonta’s appeal, aiming to clarify the law’s applicability across all of California’s charter cities. Bonta emphasized SB 9’s constitutionality and its role in enhancing housing availability and affordability statewide, highlighting ongoing efforts to defend legislative housing initiatives in court. “We firmly believe that SB 9 is constitutional as to every city in the state,” said Bonta, in a statement. “As the California Second District Court of Appeal recently held, ensuring housing availability and affordability in California is a matter of statewide importance.”
November Statewide Ballot to Feature Four Land Use Propositions California voters will face four statewide ballot propositions related to land use this November, covering issues from infrastructure funding to rent control. The ballot will feature ten propositions in total. Proposition 2 proposes a $10 billion bond primarily allocated for school construction and upgrades. Proposition 4 proposes a $10 billion bond to fund climate and environmental projects, aiming to mitigate impacts of climate change and bolster water and wildfire defenses. Proposition 5 seeks to ease voter approval requirements for local housing and infrastructure bonds to encourage borrowing for low-income and affordable housing projects. Proposition 33 proposes granting local governments authority to enforce rent control measures; it’s the latest in a string of thus-far unsuccessful rent control measures sponsored by Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation. AB1657 — which proposed issuing $10 billion in general obligation bonds to fund affordable rental housing programs for lower-income families, supportive housing for the homeless and other critical housing initiatives — will not appear on the ballot; concerned about the state’s borrowing capacity, the legislature opted instead for Proposition 2, a $10 billion school facilities bond measure… (more)
They want us to pay for our own displacement is they plow down our homes to make room for the millions they claim need housing, in spite of the loss of population in the state.
Voters will decide on this massive new IOU in this upcoming November election
With state and federal funds drying up, banks lending less, and more cities facing budget deficits, tens of thousands of newly proposed affordable homes have been stuck in limbo, unable to get off the ground.
So come this November, Bay Area voters will not only be weighing in on the next U.S. President, but also, whether or not they should step in and loan the nine-county region a total of $20 billion to move those efforts along.
Last week, the commissioners of the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority—a first-of-its kind agency created in 2020—voted unanimously to put the bond measure on ballots to fund new subsidized housing projects, buy up existing homes to make or keep them affordable, and support housing-related infrastructure…
The bond would be funded by property tax increases, with an estimated tax of $19 per $100,000 of assessed value, which shakes out to about $190 per year for a home assessed at $1 million.
If voters approve this IOU, each city would receive a cut of the proceeds based on how much its jurisdiction pays in taxes. San Francisco, for example, would get about $2.4 billion to invest, while the city of Oakland would get over $720 million. The funds would be dispersed in the form of low-cost loans.
BAHFA estimates that paying off the loan would add up to nearly $50 billion after interest. The mayors of San Francisco, San Jose and Oakland all expressed support for the bond measure. …(more)
The MTC who can’t make the trains run on time and splurges on a multi billion dollar building in San Francisco, a the tax payers expense, not wants to sell us on a housing plan that is wants to charge us for by raising property taxes. At a time when property values are receding like yesterday’s tide.
Already people who bought into the ADU concept are shocked by their higher taxes, due to the recent rise in valuation of their property. How many property owners are willing to eat the higher taxes without passing their onto their tenants? Seriously? We are going to trust the MTC with more money when they are refusing to listen to us?
These are the people who removed single family housing from the state, killed the solar industry, want to remove our private vehicles and replace gas stoves with electric that will run on nuclear power and whatever else Big Energy can find to burn. MTC is trying to force us back into the lifestyle we just pulled ourselves out of. They want us to live in tiny homes and commute to tiny office cubicles to keep their computer vehicles working. They call this backward plan their vision of the future?
This is the anti-farm pro-housing gang that seeks to plow over our farms and ranch to build more housing. Who needs fresh food when you can live in tight close quarters and eat who knows what and look cool toting your life in a bag on the Muni on your way to the Mayor’s latest rave?
Newsom is moving this family to Marin but, they will not be living in one of those little units next to the 101 Smart Train station in San Rafael. They will be living on acreage and saving for their children’s future by building equity in their homes. What will we get? Another day older and a another month’s rent.
