"At the most fundamental level, NIMBYs are NIMBYs because they prefer the status quo." San Francisco has been the poster child of the sophomoric NIMBY label by people who know nothing about how local politics and building departments really work. For one example, the chief of our building department was arrested by the FBI, and every resident knows clearly our building department is incompetent at its best, where corruption reigns.
Our downtown has a dozen or so residential towers built in the last decade, all under the guise of "affordable housing," leveraging voting and support of useful idiots who believe the issue is simply stubborn, selfish NIMBYS. Of course, if you drive past these towers at night, there are few lights on. Purely built for investment for those who don't even reside here. Previous eras of affordable housing has seen San Francisco scarred with the infamous Tenderloin, Western Edition, and now the new soulness housing built purely for profit near the new stadium.
"Of course, if you drive past these towers at night, there are few lights on. Purely built for investment for those who don't even reside here."
If people are living in these residences aren't they likely to have lights off at night to get rest? Do you have any sourced statistics about the vacancy rate in San Francisco vs the vacancy rate elsewhere?
This municipal land leasing approach sounds like a land value tax framed another way.
100% https://progressandpoverty.substack.com/p/georgism-through-land-leasing
Generally speaking, it is easier to get things done when you can show folks a good trade-off. This is a nice example.
"At the most fundamental level, NIMBYs are NIMBYs because they prefer the status quo." San Francisco has been the poster child of the sophomoric NIMBY label by people who know nothing about how local politics and building departments really work. For one example, the chief of our building department was arrested by the FBI, and every resident knows clearly our building department is incompetent at its best, where corruption reigns.
Our downtown has a dozen or so residential towers built in the last decade, all under the guise of "affordable housing," leveraging voting and support of useful idiots who believe the issue is simply stubborn, selfish NIMBYS. Of course, if you drive past these towers at night, there are few lights on. Purely built for investment for those who don't even reside here. Previous eras of affordable housing has seen San Francisco scarred with the infamous Tenderloin, Western Edition, and now the new soulness housing built purely for profit near the new stadium.
"Of course, if you drive past these towers at night, there are few lights on. Purely built for investment for those who don't even reside here."
If people are living in these residences aren't they likely to have lights off at night to get rest? Do you have any sourced statistics about the vacancy rate in San Francisco vs the vacancy rate elsewhere?