Well said, thanks.

Arbitrary vetoes of new housing are the true moral crisis Opposition to Marina Safeway project reflects a broader pattern of blocking new housing, worsening affordability and limiting access to high-resource neighborhoods.

The San Francisco Examiner published my op-ed in support of housing and the Marina Safeway project!

A response to another piece declaring YIMBYism a "moral myth." I work for a friggin Center for Ethics in Society, so naturally wasn't gonna sit this one out...

Upzoning is necessary, is also not an argument that upzoning is sufficient.

Zoning limits *are the primary crony-capitalist* constraint*

*Aka, the homeowners blocking growth

The reforms necessary to enable sufficient social housing (overriding NIMBYism) are the same that would be necessary for the private market to do what it is able.

The hourly hotel within Toyko's international terminal was amazing for refreshing after a red eye and before a flight home (back in 2007).

again, feel free to propose prison budget cuts. I'm sure that will go over well with the coalition that's concerned about high taxes.

It still only totals 2% of our budget. Propose some actually big cuts.

I'm on board. Cutting prison budget in half gets us 1% less budget overall.

starving the beast is a cop-out proposal, tell voters what you specifically want to cut.

propose some policies, otherwise this is pointless.

we're neck and neck with Wyoming.

these are useless measures that don't tell us much in isolation.

5th in the nation, when less than 10 states matter.

and you think that means something.

I'm sorry, but this idea that we should compare ourselves to Mississipi is pure nonsense.

#11, in a country dominated by pointless red state is GOOD!

I'm sorry, did you just say our massive GDP makes us look worse in the rankings? huh?

a man in a suit and tie is saying " there would be no way of knowing " ALT: a man in a suit and tie is saying " there would be no way of knowing "

why does the geographically large and populous state have such a large budget?

very rough numbers, someone could probably get more accurate, but point stands.

you also really undermine your credibility by citing a topline statistic instead of a per-capita statistic.

our budget is $8,233 per person. I don't think that's even in the top 10.

my favorite is gate checking my carry-on (I have kids, so I've probably already checked a full-size).

yes, residential zoning limits are a giant takings and loosening them massively benefits residents who need housing at the expense of rentiers like McMansion owners.

we're in the bottom half of states for property taxes (effective rates, given prop. 13).

and sure, our marginal income tax tops out high, but again, marginal is not effective for the median resident.

I'm not saying an upzoning that is politically viable only with an unfunded IZ should be declined. That would be silly.

It renders the project less able to compete with alternative uses, and increases the reliance on the market rate tenants to fund the land acquisition.

It is the definition of a cross-subsidy.

But if impact fees are also pseudoscience....

And if zoning limits are also pseudoscience....

And processes are also....

In the end, IZ funding needs to come from direct subsidy or exemptions from *general* property tax.

Even lowered rent that still is high enough to pay for structure and operations, is still lowered and needs cross-subsidy for land value.

It seems impossible for IZ that has any utility to not require cross-subsidy. It either lowers rent and requires cross-subsidy or it doesn't lower rent.

This logic seems to highlight how much of a takings current zoning limits are.

Looks fake.

It sounds like far isn't limiting, it's allowing "too much" smaller housing.

I get that it's a serious problem of how to get larger 3 bedrooms built, because the shortage of smaller homes is apparently even more severe. I'd be open to a bonus or something targeted at 3 beds, but far reduction? Nah.