I just want a mayor that takes housing, transit, and education seriously at least.

Not a mayor who kills bike lanes and vision zero projects because it’s politically inconvenient to their friends.

Not a mayor who capitulates to Trump.

Not a mayor who gives away $$$ to billionaires.

Make it in the vein of ANDOR and I’m sold

Ok, but that doesn't matter if your family and jobs are in LA, not Vegas, which is the point of the earlier posts. We need to build a LOT more housing in most cities in America, and legalize more housing types

I am also of the opinion we need 3 key things in SF:

1. A new BART crossing + Geary/Mission service
2. Conventional rail tunnel (Link21) for Caltrain, HSR, Capitol Corridor
3. Massive upzoning of all of SF

Ideas:

1. Could this be a Muni line (e.g., automated light metro like Vancouver) for Geary & down to Mission, maybe looping, w/o a transbay tube?

2. If BART, a phased loop (e.g., SFSU/Sunset/GGP - Geary - Mission), then when $$ materializes, add a later transbay tube to Oakland/Alameda?

Pittsburgh: 2.4M metro pop
Minneapolis: 3.76M
Vegas: 2.4M

Total: 8.56M, just 65% of the Los Angeles metro, 41% of the NYC metro, or just 2.5% of the entire US population.

Good for those cities, but that doesn't discount the challenges that the rest of the country faces, fwiw

And, the only places that have any kind of community amenities especially if you come from a small community like I do (the deaf community)

Dude, stop doubling down on this. It’s not true at all.

We’re seeing housing prices outpace wages and inflation, where homebuyers are trending older and older. In places like California and in large cities (where the jobs are) it’s nearly impossible for younger people to buy anything anymore

This is why I love @ggwash.org 's endorsements for elections - it's a great guide and starting point for local candidates here in DC.

Maybe consider something similar where you send out a questionnaire to candidates where you post their responses, and rate them on their transit/housing policy?

This was published in '24, "95.80 percent of total residential land area in California is zoned as single-family-only."

Single-Family Zoning in California: A Statewide Analysis | Othering & Belonging Institute share.google/tkSh5H0mxOex...

Can we get the YIMBYs to defeat Prop 13 now?

I mean, have you seen the obsession with Wawa and Buccees in this country?

I'd argue it's not at the margin - it's the default preference because it's often one of the only options available to people in 90% of the country, and we've built an entire economy + culture around this

So, Capitol Hill in DC? That's basically exactly what you're talking about here

Under the current system and approach, yep.

Ideally, we'd have enough supply where there's competition for rent, maintenance, etc, and with enough supply, evictions would be fewer, forcing landlords to provide a better quality product following market economics (supply + demand!)

In addition, the commodification of housing means that instead of housing stock becoming simply places to live, it becomes an investment. Zoning and regulations = artificial scarcity, driving prices up, making SFH more desirable since it's now viewed as an investment

The problem is "overwhelmingly choose the latter" is misleading when the majority of housing stock and new housing stock in this country is SFH. In desirable areas, again, it is mostly illegal to build anything denser than SFH, so this isn't really a choice.

Source: www.urban.org/sites/defaul...

Detached SFHs suck, and is often the only option for people who want to own a home, with more externalities, too.

There's not enough smaller, affordable apts/condos in desirable areas, bc it's usually illegal to build. SFHs in contrast are the only type really being built because it's legal!

Link to release?