Policies that prevent housing

There are two issues I wanted to *very briefly* discuss today that greatly affect the development of affordable housing in San Francisco.  I know that these are much larger topics than can be covered here, I just wanted to link these ideas to the cost of living here.  The first category is limitations in zoning and planning laws.  The second is the idea of rent control, and its unintended consequences.

The idea of restricting what can be done on private land have been around for about 100 years now, and are constantly being tinkered with.  Zoning laws were created to separate residential neighborhoods from industrial areas.  Now this differentiation has grown to include not just use, but also occupancy, height, bulk, setbacks, and appearance.  Laws now restricting what can be built where. In actuality there are two types of zoning, inclusive and exclusive.  Some say Use A is permitted, while other says anything except Use B.  There is also the difference between being explicitly allowed, or being not illegal, it’s all a matter of context.  To this extent, we have to realize more areas of the city need to be upzoned.  Instead of requiring single family zoning, we can merely allow two (or more) units on a lot.  The classic example of this is the in-law apartment.  Reality has to be acknowledged as well – in law apartments exist all over, and quite frankly are desirable.

The other big issue is rent control.  There are two different types of restrictions put on rent in San Francisco, and there needs to be a line drawn between the good and the bad.  The difference between what we think of as rent control, and what we think of as tenants rights is the main problem. Originally they were one package, but there are economic rules, and quality of life rules.  I understand that markets must be regulated to an extent, but arbitrary dates and shifting laws are anything but sane. When Chris Daly proposes even more restrictive and draconian laws, then the landlords really will pull a John Galt.

The moral restrictions on evicting people are a great theory, but sometimes end up as blackmail.  In many cases a remodeling project is stalled or delayed because a tenant refuses to move, even if remdial measures are proposed.  Current law requires a payment to the tenant to move out, but it almost always escalates.  Obviously some controls are required, but the stigma of evicting a tenant is often enough to prevent a bank from issuing a construction loan, or to prevent the Planning Commission from approving the plan.  The difference between the legally required moving fee of some $5,000, and the going rate of about $50,000 to vacate is only passed on to the new owner.

The main issue referred to as “rent control” is the artificial fixing of prices, contrary to market rates.  When over 90% of economists agree that rent control actually increases the cost of living, shouldn’t we pay attention?  These controls remove any motive for the repair or renovation of existing buildings, and more importantly, remove the motivation for building new rental housing.  Landlords live in fear of the post-1979 buildings being roped into the existing laws, even though they’re currently exempt.  I don’t want to be citing the CATO institute, but just look at what happened when Massachusetts removed rent control in 1994.  Rents didn’t go up, elderly people weren’t kicked to the curb, but new construction and property taxes receipts went up.  Of course there are good ways and bad ways of changing the restrictions, this is just an introduction.

The rules as stated are not doing their perceived duty.  There is a well established system of getting around the rules, and it’s a very expensive compromise.  Developers buy out tenants, have fewer lots to build on, and may be affected by development fees and restrictions.  All of the uncertainty is what makes construction so costly.  Make the process easier, allow for more to be built, and costs will come down.

Using what we have

SF State Station, M Line, via wikipedia

Picking up on a thread from my last post, I want to focus on increasing the TOD potential along existing transit routes in San Francisco.  The basic fact is that new (rail and BRT) transit is incredibly expensive to build, but generally well worth it in social costs.  Our question is – what do we do with existing transit that is underused?

If you look at the transit ridership numbers from the Transit Effectiveness Project, the majority of the boardings on the K,L & M lines are in the tunnel along market.  The busiest stop is typically Castro or Montgomery or Embarcadero.  So does that mean that we should increase the level of service in the Metro Tunnel?  What about the future?  Of course, the reason is that those stops serve more people, as in they serve a denser population.

Instead of trying to increase the service from one point in the line, why not increase the demand along the length of the route?  Part of the Eastern Neighborhoods plan was the introduction of Transit Zoning to areas near BART and the T line.  This zoning should be utilized to try and increase the population with access to transit, but also the ability to live ‘away’ from the city.  I understand that people enjoy the idea of living apart from Downtown, but in a city that’s this small, it will soon become inescapable.

Park Merced Plan, via socketsite

One great example of this is the Park Merced neighborhood trying to increase their density.  The 1940s car-centric development is trying to add more towers to their land and take advantage of the M line running just a few blocks away.  Instead, the residents are fighting to preserve one of the last bastions of suburbia within San Francisco.  One resident says “”There is no reason why this shouldn’t remain as it is indefinitely” (from SFgate) – but that is the exact opposite of the truth.  There is no possible way for the neighborhood not to change, due to the large increases in population that San Francisco needs to absorb.

Again, it all comes down to basic economics.  More dwellings = cheaper houses.  Living near transit = less reliance on personal cars.  Developing around existing transit is much more effective than building lines through established neighborhoods.  So, what kinds of arguments can we make to appease NIMBYs?  It all starts with changing the government regulations.

Moving out West

There is one main problem with trying to accommodate more people into San Francisco: residents don’t want any additional neighbors.  Many such NIMBYs will state that new housing should be built away from them, typically in the Downtown and SOMA areas.  After all, it is closer to most jobs, many towers already exist, and it’s the densest part of our city.  The reason they’re wrong?  New dwelling units built downtown easily break $1 million, while units in The Sunset go for half of that, with southern regions being even more affordable.  This policy has added greatly to the dearth of affordable housing.

What is it that makes certain areas of the city less attractive?  Certainly it’s not solely distance.  Neighborhoods such as West Portal and the Outer Mission are bustling commercial centers, despite their distance.  The easiest argument is that these areas are less exciting, perhaps even less ‘San Franciscan’.  After all, the reason many of us live here is for the feeling as much as anything else.  The Sunset is famous for its constant grid, and relentless monotony.  Instead of accepting that certain areas might be less desirable, why not try to bring them in line with our dreams and expectations?  Perhaps if we focused on re-creating the western regions, we might be able to build more units and attract more residents.

Sunset District, Robert Campbell Photography

My architecture firm has had no shortage of interest from builders in the outer regions of The Sunset, Portola, Excelsior, etc.  Fairly often we are confronted by two concerns – the unit cost will be low, so have to design differently; and neighbors don’t want us to build any denser, or to change their neighborhood.  Even if we start with a empty lot, or a blighted building, the adjacent residents often want to maintain the status quo.

This of course is a bit of a chicken and the egg conundrum.   Do we try to rezone certain areas to encourage a build out, or do we try other planning efforts to draw people to the neighborhood – thus increasing rents/purchase prices – and incentive to developers.  The exciting point is that the Sunset is basically a blank slate, with which we can try several ideas.  Already the density along Taraval is increasing, and Ocean Ave is getting a much needed rezoning in Balboa Park.  I’m advocating a much more sweeping plan, but I think we need more neighborhood outreach.  The idea is ruined unless we can get resident buy in.  After all, the height limit is 40′ through most of the city, but you rarely see that.

With increased investment in the outer regions, we can easily add housing for many, many more people.  This increase in available housing, particularly in a family environment, is much needed in San Francisco.  Any additional housing will increase the competition for tenants, and help reduce the rent prices we all struggle with.  So, instead of looking to Oakland or Daly City, look West towards affordability!