Hopefully the local interests who also know how to play the political game well enough but recognize the "indications that businesses and residents are fleeing the state in part because of high housing costs and the state's Legislative Analyst Office blaming excessive restrictions on development for the affordability crisis".

Profiting from pulling out the rug to newcomers only works if there are enough newcomers still willing to pay the exorbitant rents for the artificially suppressed supply. If enough people start saying "eh, the bay area is nice and all but not worth it", the NIMBYism starts to get less profitable. Sort of a pendulum-swinging-the-other-way dynamic-equilibrium type of thing.

That is exactly what the electorate wants.

I've heard before that "everybody who moves to California wants to be the last person who moves to California."

I think that applies here. Once you've got your spot, its best if it stays the way it is.

"Got mine, screw you" isn't limited to Californian real estate though. It is unfortunately very broadly applied.

It's not just "broadly applied", it's the American motto!

Let's not kid ourselves: it isn't just the American motto...it is motto of most people in the world.

I don't know about that. Ignoring the rest of the world for a moment and concentrating on industrialized nations, we seem to be the worst at providing socialized services.

I've been out of the states for 10 years now and have noticed the motto being applied in states as altruistic as Switzerland, and it definitely rules in here China, much more than in the US.

China is a third-world country not comparable to western Europe. It's industrializing rapidly, but no one would ever be so naïve to think it has social services even approaching those in western nations.

China is comparable, but further down the development chain. Social safety nets and good governance tempers selfishness a bit, but can't eliminate it (e.g. Switzerland). America has less of a net and equality than much of Europe, which is why selfishness seems to be more apparent there than in Europe.

No, China isn't even remotely comparable. Just a few decades ago, it was a mostly agrarian economy. They've had massive industrialization in a very short time, but they don't the much longer-term culture of industrialization and social programs and worker protections etc. that western nations have.

And how exactly is Switzerland "selfish"? They may not be part of the EU, but they appear to have just as many social safety nets as any other western European nation. This seems like a rather silly charge to me.

My guess is that that would be a tougher law to pass. The real estate developers and construction trade unions would pretty much swear to block something that extreme.

It could also wreak havoc with small-time landlords who want to improve their properties, so that's another interest group that would militantly oppose it.

This has already happened in SF. You need a permit to install a new garage door on your house, including a review of how well it fits the neighborhood character (in the subjective opinion of the reviewer).

Yes, the real estate developers and construction unions have screamed, for decades. It passed anyway.

"You need a permit to install a new garage door on your house"

I can only imagine what would happen to a politician who would suggest this much less a group of politicians that would pass this in North Dakota.

Why are they in office and who is supporting this type of legislation?

In the 1960s and early 1970s, the San Francisco city government was run by pro-development Republicans who built some admittedly rather monstrous looking concrete slab modernist skyscrapers downtown.

(Contrary to popular belief, it was then a rather conservative city, not some sort of mythical artsy bohemian paradise. The "freaks," as they were then known, were a small minority of the population.)

This led to an anti-development backlash against the so called "Manhattanization" of San Francscio, which synergized with general anti-capitalist sentiment brought by the large number of leftist newcomers who arrived in the 1970s. The pro-development Republicans were routed entirely out of city politics by 1980, and rent control as well as a number of highly restrictive zoning laws were passed, aimed at preserving the picturesque postcard hillsides and views of the bay and halting all forms of physical and social change in the city.

The result is that most of the city has a "frozen in amber" feel to it. Making any substantial changes to the way anything physically looked circa 1950 is simply forbidden.

If you have to do repairs, you must demonstrate how it will not alter the appearance of the building. You must preserve the facade identically to the way it has been. You can often see gut renovations where the original facade is propped up on wooden stilts facing the street, and the entire rest of the house has been torn down to be rebuilt.

A current case in the local news revolves around the city granting landmark status to a 60 year old pine tree (not even a rare species) in some guy's backyard, so that he is legally unable to remove it: http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-san-francisco-...

Right. Another aspect of this is that SF is one of the few cities where minority groups have been able to use housing laws effectively to try and prevent them being kicked out of the city as prices rise (in most other American cities, these actions have failed). Look at the Tenderloin or Chinatown. This creates a pretty difficult where mostly poor minority groups feel like they have to be anti-development, because otherwise they won't be able to live in the city anymore. In theory given enough building and enough time, prices will go down and SF could be diverse again, but most people think that would be along time. It's a compounding situation of bad choices.

I also think you're giving short shrift to the effect that Milk's and Moscone's assassination had on city politics. It heightened everything that was going on elsewhere in the late '70s - the rise of the environmentalist movement, urbanism, increasing power to minority groups.

I would also say that a lot of the blame belongs to the cities outside of SF: SF only has 11% of the total population of the Bay Area and most of it's suburbs are even more anti growth then the city itself, they just hide it better by being zoned for single residency housing.

Very true about this being a regional problem. San Francisco is doing a poor job building more housing but the suburbs are actually far worse, such as mountain view allowing more office space to be built but no new housing.

Sounds like we could have a fascinating discussion about this over a few beers. My email is in my profile; send me a note and I'll buy you one!

How exactly do they handle storm damage?

A 60 year old pine tree is a danger to multiple houses (depending on density). Better hope it stays healthy.

Landmark status for a tree is rather unusual even in San Francisco. I don't know what would happen if this specific tree were damaged by a storm. My guess is they'd allow its removal and require that it be replaced by another one, but who knows.

They don't really have storms

Storms are not common in San Francisco, but they do happen occasionally. We usually get at least one or two good thunderstorms with high wind every winter.

There was a big one in February that eroded away a huge chunk of beach: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Old-ruins-emerging-on-...

It seems that the local CBS has stories about storm damage in the bay area http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/tag/storm-damage/

I was watching Dirty Harry the other day and was amazed by how San Francisco looked exactly the same in that film as it does today.

Hah, I know that tree. The picture they used does not do it any justice. Its a beautiful tree. The lot is at end of the dead end street off Geary. Interesting one - double or triple size with main house and old carriage house on it, both set way back, unusual for that area and pretty. My guess is, it was bought to be torn down and build a couple multi-million townhomes side-by-side. Suppose it was easier for those guys to protect the tree than the home, carriage house or parcel itself. Is it that big of a loss of very unaffordable housing in grand scheme of things? The developer would not do affordable apartment building, even if it was zoned, the profit is just not there. I'd take that tree anyday over new small home. Looked at it every time I walked by it.

By the way, one fact thats rarely mentioned, that makes it far more profitable for developers to build small structures in sf is the earthquake code. Once you get over three stories, its totally different and far, far more expensive from time, engineering and materials standpoint. Dont get me wrong I'd love to see the city grow in height over some areas such as along Lincoln dr, its just not as simple as only zoning or nymbd blocking everything.

They are put in office by property owners that are big fans of these laws.

That seems questionable. I haven't met a property owner that is a fan of permits.

Harder to build -> harder to densify -> homeowners reap appreciation.

If you don't need work done, this is a great way to sit back and let your property values skyrocket (as long as you can pay property taxes, but I hear that's kinda sorta not a problem in California).

Existing homeowners don't usually oppose new development in order to maximize their property values. They are usually more motivated by quality of life issues. Some people specifically chose to live in low-density suburbs in order to have a little space, privacy, and quiet. It's hard to convince them to put up with more noise and traffic congestion just so that newcomers can have cheaper housing.

What percentage of home owners are people who have owned their house for a long time (to benefit from prop 13), need zero work done (unlikely if you've owned your house for a long time), and whose behavior can be reduced to a financial equation?

My guess is that a lot of people do interior work without permits. If you're tearing down an interior wall and re-building a bathroom, there's no evidence of that from outside, so no simple way for the city to stop you.

There is tons of this in SF, notably the huge number of illegally built "in-law apartments," where someone converts their garage or basement into a seperate dwelling unit without permits.

Hell if I know. Look it up and post it here if you're that interested. I have things to do.

This is essentially what San Francisco does now: "fitting in with the neighborhood's character" is impossible to meet, unless you play the political game well enough.

That sounds like how things already are, esp with the "neighborhood character" restriction.

Local real estate interests and the lack of political will. Sweeping zoning changes are hard work over many years. Those that widely devalue property? Few local politicians have the charisma to ride out multiple elections with that sort of agenda.