>I'm not personally opposed to "live/work" developments per se...
>I disagree with the renters' groups in their opposition to
>coops and condos.
Good. I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would want the
housing shortage to continue, but apparently some do.
>But:
>(a) I object to the loopholes and tax breaks as inequitable, and (b)
>I don't see an overall plan of saving the city's industriallly zoned
>space, as opposed to opportunistic quick-buck accommodations to
>developers.
Fair enough, as I wasn't familiar with all of the tax breaks. Tax breaks
are generally (though not always) a waste of money. Better to cut taxes
for all.
However: there is a well-established need for exactly this kind of space,
both by artists and by people who just need space, regardless of use.
The fact that such spaces are expensive is PROOF of this! Only when
several spaces SIT EMPTY for a while, and prices level off, will we know
we are near equilibrium, as we are for almost every other consumer good.
(Rush hour taxi service of course is the exception, again thanks to City
Hall.)
It seems foolish to step on developers who are trying to meet this need
and have found a shortcut through the city's zoning rules. A better
approach, clearly, is to encourage high-density development in areas like
SOMA where people seem to want to live. The best way is to modify zoning
rules so this is possible - in effect, to get out of the way. Perhaps
the first rule to go should be the off-street parking requirement.
Not being a commercial developer or lessee, I can't say I understand all
the requirements of commercial/industrial land users in SF. Clearly
forcing them out is in general a bad thing. But think of all the empty
land still there in areas like the Port - we are not yet at a point where
commercial developers couldn't add offices or light industry.
Large-scale industrial development (e.g. chip fabs) is probably out of
the question, but I would guess that this is mainly because of
neighborhood opposition and the small size of SF land parcels.
How to encourage that kind of development is its own discussion. I
suspect that competently run, cost-effective transit may have something
to do with it!
Andrew
s u l l i . o r g
ANDREW SULLIVAN
NEW email: andrew@sulli.org
NEW web: www.sulli.org
SAME physical address: 1668 Grove St, SF CA 94117
Phone: 415 673 0626