This. If a proposed building meets the zoning requirements, it should be able to be built, full stop. To build anything you have to kowtow to the local building commission and the extortion of local groups[0]. Simply decreeing that it is a property owner's right to 'build a 5 story apartment building on a lot zoned for 5 story apartment buildings[1]' would do so much to alleviate housing pressure.

[0]Invariably environmental studies will be insufficient, traffic studies will be insufficient, the color of the neighborhood will be disrupted, gentrification!, etc.

[1]Consistent with rules and codes clearly defined, preferentially with affirmative defense against frivolous legal action.

> Actually just removing all public comment would be more impactful than anything. In nearly every jurisdiction, including places like SF, there is ample housing theoretically permitted under current zoning.

Is there a source for this?

Sorry, let me clarify: the SF _Bay Area_ has a lot more housing theoretically allowed within existing zoning.

But I’ll admit, in the case of the Bay Area, it’s such a desirable place to live that if they build a million homes tomorrow I’m not sure it would satisfy demand, though I do think that would be enough to move us down the price curve a bit.

I doubt it, because the nameplate capacity of San Francisco after its 1970s downzoning was very close to its actual size now. Same for Los Angeles, which was down-zoned from 10 million to 4 million in the 1970s.

https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/programs/housing/housing-supply/z...