Posted on 12/15/2022 7:52:40 PM PST by SeekAndFind
The San Francisco Chronicle did an analysis of the timeline for building permits in the city and even to an SF pessimist like myself the results are pretty shocking. On average it takes more than two years to get a building permit for a single family residence in the city. It’s only slightly less for a multi-family dwelling.
When housing advocates and developers talk about how long it takes to get permits to build housing in San Francisco, they don’t speak in increments of days, weeks or months. They speak in years.
And they’re not exaggerating, according to a new Chronicle analysis of permit-approval data from the city’s Department of Building Inspection.
The typical applicant currently waits a staggering 627 calendar days before obtaining a full building permit from the city to construct a multifamily housing project, and 861 days before gaining the same approval for a single-family residence, the analysis found.
“Most cities have timelines where it’s like a few weeks. San Francisco is like a few years,” said Corey Smith, executive director of the Housing Action Coalition, an advocacy group that has pushed to cut permitting times.
A decade ago the time for approval averaged just under a year (342 days). That’s still not good but it’s a significant difference. And the figures above don’t include planning approval, another step that happens before a permit application can be submitted.
To build housing in San Francisco, developers must first receive planning approval, known as entitlement, to ensure the city supports the type, size and design of housing proposed for a site. This part of the process took an average of 450 days over the last 18 months, according to recent data from the state.
Add all of that together and it’s 3-4 years before you can build anything in the city. The Chronicle spoke to builders who work in the city and they pointed out this was why projects don’t get built in San Francisco. And over time that means the cost of housing goes up because there are more people fighting over a stagnant number of homes.
The situation has gotten so bad that Gov. Newsom announced an investigation into SF’s housing approval process a few months ago.
After a year of escalating warnings, Gov. Gavin Newsom is launching an unprecedented review of San Francisco’s notoriously lengthy and difficult housing approval and permitting process, aimed at identifying and removing barriers to construction of new residential development in the city…
“We are deeply concerned about processes and political decision-making in San Francisco that delay and impede the creation of housing and want to understand why this is the case,” said Housing and Community Development Director Gustavo Velasquez…
“San Francisco stands alone as an example of what is an acutely concerning pattern of delays and denial,” said Jason Elliott, senior counselor to Newsom.
The inability to build new housing is one of the major factors contributing to the city’s homelessness problem. Earlier this week the Atlantic published a story arguing that the number one predictor of homelessness is a lack of cheap housing.
…some urban areas with very high rates of poverty (Detroit, Miami-Dade County, Philadelphia) have among the lowest homelessness rates in the country, and some places with relatively low poverty rates (Santa Clara County, San Francisco, Boston) have relatively high rates of homelessness. The same pattern holds for unemployment rates: “Homelessness is abundant,” the authors write, “only in areas with robust labor markets and low rates of unemployment—booming coastal cities.”
The thrust of that piece is that people will only tolerate rampant homelessness and the crime and filth that comes with it for so long before they start demanding the city and the police do something about it. And that’s certainly part of why you saw San Francisco DA Chesa Boudin get recalled in one of the country’s most progressives cities. But if you believe the only lasting solution is more cheap housing then a 3-year delay on new construction is obviously a major problem.
The Atlantic piece, surprisingly, doesn’t try to blame this all on the right. On the contrary, the author says the problem is a loose coalition of groups and interests on the left:
As the historian Jacob Anbinder has explained, in the ’70s and ’80s conservationists, architectural preservationists, homeowner groups, and left-wing organizations formed a loose coalition in opposition to development. Throughout this period, Anbinder writes, “the implementation of height limits, density restrictions, design review boards, mandatory community input, and other veto points in the development process” made it much harder to build housing. This coalition—whose central purpose is opposition to neighborhood change and the protection of home values—now dominates politics in high-growth areas across the country, and has made it easy for even small groups of objectors to prevent housing from being built. The result? The U.S. is now millions of homes short of what its population needs.
Los Angeles perfectly demonstrates the competing impulses within the left. In 2016, voters approved a $1.2 billion bond measure to subsidize the development of housing for homeless and at-risk residents over a span of 10 years. But during the first five years, roughly 10 percent of the housing units the program was meant to create were actually produced. In addition to financing problems, the biggest roadblock was small groups of objectors who didn’t want affordable housing in their communities.
In this view of things, there’s a small-c conservatism that dominates even among progressive homeowners. People in places like San Francisco want to be sanctuary cities and want to care for the homeless, they just don’t want it to happen on their street where there home values have doubled in the last decade.
Incidentally, I think that’s also why you get such a reaction of shock and dismay when border state governors send busloads of migrants to the places where progressives actually live. The residents and mayors of New York and Chicago and Washington, DC are all for keeping those migrants here in the United States, just not right here where they live.
My own take is that there’s probably a lot of truth to the idea that lack of new housing leads to homelessness, but building more apartments won’t solve the problem of the chronically homeless drug addicts who choose to be on the streets because that’s where the drugs are. Getting those people off the streets is not going to happen because of a new housing development. Many of them won’t even stay in shelters or tiny homes because they feel the rules (against selling or using drugs) are too onerous.
Still, I think it’s correct that you could improve the situation over time by reducing the number of new homeless people being added to the streets every day. And that won’t happen so long as it takes 3 years just to get approval for new multi-family housing.
One builder had to completely redesign the parking area of his townhome development because an "environmental study" had determined that the driveway entry points into the building's underground garage weren't where the councilmembers would have put them.
The redesign would limit the amount of cabinet space in the garage that the developer could provide to the owners.
This is the type of silliness that would drive most sane people crazy.
Really? they can’t just buy a house in Oakland?
While I agree that 3 years for a building permit is criminal, anyone who talks to ‘the homeless’ for 5 minutes knows immediately that more housing WILL NOT solve the problem, in fact it won’t even be noticed on the street.
San Francisco is only 47 square miles and it’s been built out for 100 years. Los Angeles is 500 square miles. Go build there.
BS No homeless person could afford anything built in Frisco.
Majority voted for it. That’s the government they wanted.
Leftards screw up everything they touch.
They can re-purpose the Twitter building once Musk moves out.
The delays are one thing. What is the cost of the necessary bribes?
Here’s the thing about the homeless and house permit problems in San Francisco (and elsewhere): if the residents of the city actually wanted the problems solved, they would have solved them a long time ago.
The residents don’t want the problems solved though. They just want the problems to be someone else’s problem and they want to keep their own scams and their own petty scolding and nagging feifdoms in positions of influence.
Good grief. It took 4-1/2 years to build the Golden Gate Bridge.
I can build a house in Alaska without any building permit needed. That’s the difference between a free state and a leftist hellhole state.
My aunt and uncle added an addition to their home back in the 1990s in Rancho Palos Verdes near Long Beach, Calif. They had a corner of the house where it was a patio with a pole in one corner.
All that needed to be done is add 2 walls, remove one wall to the family room, On the outside walls a sliding door on one side and double doors on the other side with big windows in between. This allowed a lot of light in to the family room connected to it. Plus add a skylight in the family room. Like 2 weeks work.
They had to wait 6 months for the homeowner association to approve the design of the windows as someone did not like them. They would have already matched the other windows on the house.
The relatives had about 2.5 acres and no one could see their home from the street or nearby so it was just arbitrary on someone’s part.
You could build an entire house in in under 6 months!
Finally some thing or some one to blame, I was getting worried they usually have the finger pointed immediately at the target
In “Seattle Is Dying” people point out there is no homeless problem; there is a DRUG PROBLEM - and housing won’t fix it. The people interviewed also make it clear the problem can never be fixed because they won’t even name the true problem.
The “homeless” interviewed openly admit 100% of the people on the streets are addicts.
While housing costs may be a problem for normals, there is no relation to the homeless addicts; they won’t pay rents or mortgage, or maintain any housing provided.
The homeless problem is not a result of not enough houses. It is that rents are too high for people who have expensive drug habits. If a normal person is confronted with a choice between rent and a going to the movies, they will pay the rent. If a drug addict has a choice between rent and a habit, the habit wins every time. Quickly the rent ceases to be a choice and the only housing problem becomes having to move their tent when the city decides they are a nuisance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.