News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:San Francisco's zoning makes it illegal to build apartmen... by CydeWeys on Thursday July 19, 2018 @12:26PM (#17567844)
Suburban sprawl is one of the main problems that we are facing. Building more sprawl isn't a solution to anything, it just makes the problem worse, while also decimating precious wilderness areas in the bargain.

How would people living north of the Golden Gate commute to their jobs in SF? The only option is driving across the bridge, which already has horrendous traffic during commuting hours. That doesn't work as a solution. Building denser housing in San Francisco itself, close enough to workplaces or transit that people don't need to drive to work, is the real solution.

Re:San Francisco's zoning makes it illegal to build apartmen... by jrockway on Thursday July 19, 2018 @12:42PM (#17568046)
Wasn't a BART extension proposed and vetoed by NIMBYs? I think the deal was, if there was realistic transportation people would want to live in Marin County, and then existing residents wouldn't be able to have a mansion a 20 minute drive away from San Francisco (if they avoid peak commuting hours, or just live there and don't commute).

It is a waste. People want to work in San Francisco and live nearby. The government should be concerned about making that possible... because whatever the environmental impact, it can't be worse than the 3 hour commutes in a single-occupant vehicle that people have today.

Re:San Francisco's zoning makes it illegal to build apartmen... by tarr11 on Thursday July 19, 2018 @12:58PM (#17568237)
The "Marin Nimby" spin isn't the full story [0]

Maps were drawn for BART in Marin showing stations in Sausalito, Mill Valley, Corte Madera, Santa Venetia with a possible extension to Ignacio. A 1956 poll found 87.7 percent of Marin residents wanted BART in the county.

Dreams of BART in Marin took another hit when San Mateo County pulled out of the plan, saying costs were too high. Additionally, San Mateo County had Southern Pacific commuter trains - which later morphed into Caltrain - to meet local demands.

With San Mateo out, the tax base to support the BART plan was significantly weakened. Marin's small population would not provide much tax base to support the project with San Mateo County no longer in the plan.

BART officials also worried that Marin voters - faced with conflicting bridge studies - might vote against the plan believing they might never see service.

"There was a big concern that Marin might vote it down and if that happened that could have killed the entire proposal," Dyble said, noting votes from all the BART counties were tallied as one.

With those concerns, BART directors asked the Marin County Board of Supervisors to vote the county out of the system.

"There is one significant difference - (San Mateo) withdrew voluntarily," Supervisor Peter Behr said at the time Marin withdrew in May 1962. "We are withdrawing involuntarily and upon request."

After that vote, Marin tried to get back in before the November election, but BART officials rejected the idea and the county was locked out of the system, Dyble said.

Without BART, the bridge district later started bus and ferry service to serve Marin commuters.

[0] http://www.marinij.com/article/ZZ/20100807/NEWS/100809186

Re:San Francisco's zoning makes it illegal to build apartmen... by jrockway on Thursday July 19, 2018 @07:15PM (#17571191)
Very interesting; thanks for the link.
Re:San Francisco's zoning makes it illegal to build apartmen... by kindatrue on Thursday July 19, 2018 @12:55PM (#17568199)
>Wasn't a BART extension proposed and vetoed by NIMBYs?

It was the 1960's... so I'd probably say "vetoed by Racists"

Despite California's stereotyped liberal/progressive values, the 1960's also saw Prop 14 "allow property owners and landlords to turn away colored people" winning 65% support.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_14_(196...

Re:San Francisco's zoning makes it illegal to build apartmen... by pessimizer on Thursday July 19, 2018 @02:19PM (#17568985)
All property owners in SF are retroactively NIMBYs trying to keep young wealthy white and asian programmers out. Even though until 1974 the National Association of Realtors' Article 5 implicitly made it a code of ethics violation to move black people into a white neighborhood, and HOAs were originally called White Homeowners' Associations and their only purpose was to legally insure that all home sales in the neighborhood were to whites.
Re:San Francisco's zoning makes it illegal to build apartmen... by mnm1 on Thursday July 19, 2018 @02:22PM (#17569021)
You mean there's a difference? Cause up here near Portland, it seems to be the same story only five years ago instead of in the 60's. And I'm sure there are plenty of examples of the same throughout the country. I guess HN doesn't like it when comments get too close to reality.
Re:San Francisco's zoning makes it illegal to build apartmen... by BurningFrog on Thursday July 19, 2018 @10:12PM (#17571933)
> How would people living north of the Golden Gate commute to their jobs in SF? The only option is driving across the bridge, which already has horrendous traffic during commuting hours.

I don't want to argue against this.

I want to point out that people can't even imagine building new bridges or tunnels anymore!

The GG bridge was built in 3 years in the thirties. Today we have enormously better technology and are vastly richer. Why can't we build 2 bridges and 3 tunnels the next 10 years?

Re:San Francisco's zoning makes it illegal to build apartmen... by masonic on Friday July 20, 2018 @04:56AM (#17573471)
Doesn't the $8 billion disaster of the new Bay Bridge answer your question?
Re:San Francisco's zoning makes it illegal to build apartmen... by BurningFrog on Saturday July 21, 2018 @12:14AM (#17580655)
It says that we can't build things. But why is harder to say...