San Francisco's Can-Kicking on Zoning Reform Could See It Lose All Zoning Powers
Plus: the U.S. Justice Department says zoning restrictions on a church's soup kitchen are likely illegal, more cities pass middle housing reforms, and California gears up for another rent control fight.

The inaugural edition of Rent Free includes these stories:
- The feds are siding with an Oregon church suing for its right to operate a soup kitchen on its own property, local zoning regulations be darned.
- City councils across the country are passing reforms that allow more housing in more places and make neighborhood stores feasible to build again.
- The fight over a rent control initiative on the 2024 California ballot is turning nasty quickly.
But first, this week's lead item:
San Francisco's Can-Kicking on Zoning Reform Could See It Lose All Zoning Powers
It takes San Francisco three years on average to fully approve new housing projects, the longest of any jurisdiction in California, according to an audit published by the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in October.
The very predictable result is that the Golden State's fourth-largest city is also one of the nation's most expensive, with median one-bedroom rents above $2,000 and a median home value of $1.4 million.
You are reading Rent Free from Christian Britschgi and Reason. Get more of Christian's urban regulation, development, and zoning coverage.
That San Francisco is expensive because it takes forever to approve new housing isn't a new finding. Whether the city will actually get rid of the regulations gumming up home construction is now coming to a head.
Today, the city's Board of Supervisors will consider a "constraints reduction" ordinance intended to speed up housing approvals by cutting public hearing requirements and layers of review for code-compliant housing projects.
State housing officials have told the city it must approve this ordinance, or risk losing the power to set its own housing regulations.
The History
The legal and political back-and-forth that's gotten San Francisco to this point is complex.
Earlier this year, San Francisco promised the state it would eliminate a long list of housing regulations as part of its goal of approving 82,000 new housing units by 2031. The city also promised to hit certain deadlines for adopting these reforms.
Ever since, state officials have been pressuring the city to stick to those deadlines. Time and again, the city keeps blowing past them.
HCD's October audit, for instance, explicitly gave the city's Board of Supervisors a late November deadline for passing its "constraints reduction" ordinance.
Not only did the board miss that deadline, individual supervisors offered amendments to the ordinance that would weaken many of its deregulatory provisions.
In response, HCD sent San Francisco officials a letter last week outlining how these amendments violate the city's past commitments and gave them a new December 28 deadline to pass a clean constraints reduction ordinance.
Unless they take action on the ordinance today, they'll likely miss that December 28 deadline.
The question everyone is asking is what happens next? Theoretically, a lot.
State Remedies
HCD has told San Francisco that if they don't meet this latest deadline, they risk being out of "substantial compliance" with state housing law.
That, in turn, could see the city lose millions in state affordable housing and transportation funding, get hit with monthly fines of up to $600,000, and even forfeit its land use authority to a court-appointed special master with the power to rewrite San Francisco's housing regulations.
San Francisco officials could also be obliged to approve "builder's remedy" projects of unlimited density (provided they included some below-market-rate, affordable units) anywhere in the city.
Legal Uncertainties
But it's not clear whether San Francisco has been a bad enough actor to actually warrant these sweeping remedies, says Christopher Elmendorf, a law professor at U.C. Davis School of Law.
Decades-old court cases deciding whether a local government is out of "substantial compliance" with state housing law are "very deferential to local governments," says Elmendorf. Should the state then try to cut San Francisco off from state grants or take away its land use powers, the city could sue to get them back and quite possibly win.
On the other hand, the California Legislature has passed a lot of laws in recent years requiring cities to cut red tape and approve new housing more quickly. Potentially, that could prompt courts to be much tougher on San Francisco today than they have been on other local governments in the past.
"No one really knows what's going to happen when the questions about compliance reach a court of appeals again," says Elmendorf. "Because we're in uncharted territory, there's this game of bluster."
Supervisors keep telling HCD to cool its jets and give the city more time to tinker with its zoning code. HCD keeps threatening to go nuclear on San Francisco while continually pushing back the date on which it could press the button.
This game of chicken is an important test case: Will San Francisco genuinely reform its arguably worst-in-the-nation system for approving new housing? If it doesn't, can the state force it to do so?
Feds Side With Oregon Church Fighting Zoning Restrictions on Soup Kitchens
Late last month, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in support of an Oregon church's lawsuit challenging zoning restrictions on its charitable meal services.
For decades, St. Timothy's Episcopal Church in Brookings, Oregon has been serving meals to the poor. During the pandemic, when other churches shut down their soup kitchens, St. Timothy's started serving meals six days a week. In response to neighbor complaints, Brookings passed an ordinance in 2021 limiting St. Timothy's to serving meals two times a week and requiring it to get a special permit.
These restrictions proved intolerable to St. Timothy's pastor Rev. Bernie Lindley.
"Churches feed people. To tell a church that they have to be limited in how they live into the Gospel of Jesus Christ is a violation of our First Amendment right to freely practice our religion," he told Reason at the time.
In early 2022, St. Timothy's sued Brookings over its restrictions on its meal services, alleging violations of the First Amendment and a federal law limiting zoning restrictions on religious properties.
The DOJ's statement of interest argues that St. Timothy's religious exercise is likely being "substantially burdened" in violation of federal law.
Cities Pass "Modest but Meaningful" Reforms Allowing Small-Scale Housing and Businesses
Several jurisdictions are wrapping up 2023 by passing "modest but meaningful" reforms that allow more residential and commercial development in existing neighborhoods. The intention is to allow the development of more affordable, more walkable neighborhoods.
Alexandria, Virginia
Last Wednesday, the city council of the D.C. suburb of Alexandria, Virginia, voted to approve a housing reform package that allows up to four units on all residential lots, reduces minimum parking requirements near major transit stops, expands a density bonus program for affordable housing production, and allows new housing in industrial zones.
Earlier this year, neighboring Arlington, Virginia, passed reforms that allow six units on all residential lots, while also imposing a cap on the number of permits the county would issue for these multi-unit projects.
"Alexandria and Arlington have both demonstrated a pretty solid median voter support for zoning changes," says Luca Gattoni-Celli, who heads the pro-zoning reform group YIMBYs of NOVA. The sum total of Alexandria's reforms is "more ambitious" than Arlington's, says Gattoni-Celli.
Durham, North Carolina
The week prior, Durham, North Carolina, adopted a suite of zoning reforms that eliminate minimum parking requirements, allow churches to build housing on their land, and relieve smaller commercial projects of the requirement to build expensive stormwater retention ponds.
That last reform is important for enabling new neighborhood enterprises like a corner store or coffee shop, says Aaron Lubeck, a general contractor, writer, and advocate of Durham's reforms.
"When you're building a small neighborhood commercial building, to be required to build a storm pond ruins your site, costs a lot of money, makes you provide less built environment at a higher cost," he tells Reason.
Less positively, Durham's reforms require larger residential projects to include commercial or civic space.
California Gears Up for Another Nasty Rent Control Fight
Come November 2024, California voters will once again decide on a ballot initiative sponsored by the non-profit AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) that would eliminate all state restrictions on local rent control policies.
There's plenty of evidence that the rent control policies California already allows limit the supply and reduce the quality of rental housing. Two times now, in 2018 and 2020, AHF has spent millions placing rent control initiatives on the statewide ballot, only to see them roundly rejected by voters.
Now the group is hoping the third time's the charm.
California's landlords are so sick of fighting AHF's rent control efforts they're now sponsoring their own ballot initiative to defund the organization's political advocacy.
AHF derives most of its money from a federal program that allows it to buy drugs from pharmaceutical companies at a discount and then charge insurers a mark-up when distributing them to patients.
The California Apartment Association (CAA) is gathering signatures for an initiative that would require nonprofits benefiting from that federal discount program to spend almost all their revenues on "direct patient care." That would effectively stop AHF funding ballot initiative campaigns.
AHF has accused CAA of unconstitutionally attempting to suppress its speech. This past week, it also filed a lawsuit to squash the CAA initiative before it even qualifies for the ballot.
Quick Links
- Far away from America's overregulated coastal cities, Sunbelt metros continue to lead the country in housing construction.
The Sun Belt continues to dominate the nation's homebuilding landscape, a trend predating the pandemic frenzy
I just emailed ResiClub PRO members (premium) an update on regional permit trends ????????https://t.co/WnHe4HXMcT pic.twitter.com/yMVPQA8WAI
— Lance Lambert (@NewsLambert) December 3, 2023
- The cities that produce the least amount of housing are interestingly enough the places where your dollar buys you the least, per a new Tax Foundation study.
- A new study finds that a homeless person has a mortality risk over three times as high as someone living inside.
- A court case about whether a railroad can seize people's homes in rural Georgia could result in more limits on private parties' exercise of eminent domain.
- A federal district court has upheld the constitutionality of an Alameda, California, ordinance regulating rent increases on houseboats.
Regulation of the Week
Woodbridge, Connecticut's zoning code prohibits business signs on private property that advertise out-of-town businesses.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"A new study finds that a homeless person has a mortality risk over three times as high as someone living inside."
"Shelter good"
Good to see we are still validating data that we have known since the existence of man. Next perhaps we can do an investigation showing humans also do better with access to water and food vs not having those things.
I'm making over $7k a month working component time. I saved hearing other people inform me how lots cash they could make online so I decided to look at it. Well, it turned into all proper and has definitely modified my life.
This is what I do... > > http://Www.Smartcareer1.com
open to get more details ..........> work.salary49.com
While I haven't read the study (and do not plan to read the study) causation is usually the next question that comes up in response to overly simplistic captions like that. Is lack of shelter the direct cause of the increased mortality, or is the root cause of the homelessness the cause of the increased mortality? If we forced them into shelter while allowing them to continue abusing dangerous substances and shooting and stabbing each other, would their mortality rates decrease? If we offered them shelter, food and water are they too addicted or mentality disabled to accept it?
I think the causation is still pretty much confirmed. Why San Francisco doesn't get freezing weather because it's right there on the ocean next to a warm water current, it still gets damned cold. And foggy. Get soaked with fog, sleep on a park bench, get 35 degree weather, and do that night after night, and you'll have problems.
That's silly. Lots of people spend months on end hiking or in the military, living outdoors with no ill effect. Lots of people (including myself) grow up without central heating or air conditioning.
can't tell if idiot or sarcastic
Maybe you’re just broken.
Nothing causes homelessness, just like nothing causes poverty. That's the default state of man. Instead the question should be what causes abundant housing and wealth. The answer is freedom. Show me a place with homelessness and poverty, and I'll show you a government that makes it difficult to build housing and create wealth.
Or... I'll show you a government that pays people to be homeless.
While making housing artificially expensive by restricting supply through zoning and permitting, killing the incentive to build new housing with rent control laws, forcing unskilled people into joblessness with wage laws, forcing skilled people into joblessness with onerous licensing requirements, prohibiting people without means from starting businesses with licenses and regulations, and otherwise doing whatever it can to make it difficult to build housing and create wealth.
While making housing artificially expensive by restricting supply through zoning and permitting,
There are plenty of places where housing is not restricted through zoning and permitting.
Places like San Francisco are geographically special, and it is in no way surprising that they are unaffordable for 99% of the population.
I noticed that San Francisco was really expensive 20+ years ago, and dealt with that problem by not living there.
There are plenty of places where housing is not restricted through zoning and permitting.
And as a general rule housing in such places is less expensive than places where it is, and that often correlates with less homelessness.
Places like San Francisco are geographically special...
The housing supply could still be increased (and as a result less expensive) if the government allowed it. But it won't.
In Seattle, for at least the last 35 years, housing has generally been more expensive here than many places in the country relatively speaking, and we didn't have favelas lining the roadways. And people weren't moving here from Tennessee to be homeless. This all started after the King County "ten years to end homelessness" plan which literally did the opposite. The idea that all of the people smoking the meth pipe under the overpass, who got on a bus from faraway, cheap places with few housing restrictions, would all be productive citizens, working their jobs and mowing their lawns but for the Jones Act is nothing more than a Libertarian Plus fantasy.
This problem was created through a system of incentives and non-existent enforcement.
The majority of people homeless for any length of time are mentally ill and/or drug addicts. These are the things that shorten their lifespan; spend as much as you want to give them free housing, it won’t do any good if they aren’t compelled to get proper treatment.
Reason could move its offices to San Fran to report directly on the smear tactics being conducted by the local unhoused population.
Yes, we deserve to get the straight poop .
Instead of kicking the can, San Franciscans should shit in it.
They are just going to paper over all these problems.
I blame the squatters.
(Editing blockquote tags she no voik again!)
"Reason could move its offices to San Fran"
Again? Or am I getting mixed up on the Sans between that and Santa Barbara and Santa Monica, or former HQ of the Libertarian Review Foundation, Libertarian Party, or someone?
I don’t think it’d be the first time Reason moved HQ back to someplace it’d been before.
California needs tent control more than rent control.
"AHF has accused CAA of unconstitutionally attempting to suppress its speech."
There's a simple solution to this. Stop all federal funding of ALL organizations. That way they won't be targeting a particular organization for the content of their free speech. Why is it okay for Democratic Party supporting churches to keep their tax-free status but not okay for "conservative" churches to engage in political activity, while it's okay for government to ban church services during a pandemic but also okay for other non-profit organizations to engage in partisan political activities while receiving tax funding as long as they're backing "liberal" issues? Meanwhile corporate PACs have to be suppressed because ... well ... just BECAUSE!
Back when I was in the building trades, in California, this was how you got a home approved: real estate stuff signed off, title search, etc. Okay fine. Now you own the ground free and clear. Apply for building permit, build, have inspector come out and inspect. First inspection always fails, by design. Second inspection sails through without a hitch. Unless you actually did violate code.
Okay, very bureaucratic. But it still only took less than a year to erect a new housing development, or get a new custom house on your property. That's start to finish, not just the paperwork but the actual building.
Sure that sounds onerous compared to some red states, but on the other hand much less onerous than some other red states. It's all local in other words. Hell, I've heard of some municipalities that actually inspect your lawn to make sure it uses the right grass. Fuck that shit.
But San Francisco is a special case of idiocracy. The problem is not too much bureaucracy, the problem is a deliberate and explicit goal of preventing new housing. Period. They hate capitalism so much that even repairing a damaged roof is an offense to them. They won't be happy until everyone is equal and living in hole. Except for Newsom. He gets to keep his McMansion on the Hill.
It’s interesting how pounding nails for a while in California gave you insight into the minutiae of “red states” real estate inspection processes.
The problem is not too much bureaucracy, the problem is a deliberate and explicit goal of preventing new housing. Period.
Yes. This.
But San Francisco is a special case of idiocracy. The problem is not too much bureaucracy, the problem is a deliberate and explicit goal of preventing new housing. Period.
Yes, and many San Franciscans want that for two reasons: (1) they don't want the character of the city to change, and (2) they don't want their property values to drop.
They hate capitalism so much
People who own $2 million condos, deliberately keep housing prices high and the supply of housing in a unique location scarce love capitalism and understand it. People who go in and tell them that they must rezone against their will in order to collapse housing prices, on the other hand, hate capitalism.
There’s something in between there called corporate fascism, or Italy in the 1940s. Wealthy people used to have “live-ins” who scrubbed the toilet and ran errands and made coffee etc.
Fast forward to 2024: wealthy democrats want to build , then profit , [deed restriction], from the average taxpayer to spread the cost of collected rent payment profits and all living expenses (see Colorado). Build “housing” for the toilet scrubbers, landscapers and part time baristas coming through the open border. Public/private enterprise, see Mises for the new definition of socialism. Plus, it’s an election year in 2024 and trump is a mean Xweeting Hitler !!!
#Openborders #subsidizeverything #spreadallcoststomiddleclasstaxpayers
2nd
Could you clarify please? Is the 2nd sentence supposed to relate to the 1st? Live-in help wasn't peculiar to fascist Italy, was it?
"In between" what and what? Some items NOYB2 referred to?
Please ignore the editing error "2nd" up front. I'm afraid if I try to edit it, the quoting tags will stop working.
You need to have text before a blockquote tag to make it work properly.
If taxpayers are on the hook for a percentage of the rent on the new development- or the purchase price on a for sale condo deed restriction, while the rent collector and developer profits….lets just say there’s some interested law firms to class action into those profits and distribute them back to taxpayers. Reverse rent control, The builder or landlord profits, the taxpayers get squeezed for part of the profits. Stay tuned on grandfathered class actions.
Free market housing- YES
“That, in turn, could see the city lose millions in state affordable housing and transportation funding, get hit with monthly fines of up to $600,000…”
Don’t fine the city. Fine the Supervisors.
The homeless guy that used to sleep in the small, sheltered entryway outside the door to my office surrounded by his meager belongings (including, remarkably, a small 12-volt television connected to a car battery) once explained to me that he was just fine living outside. No rent to pay, no bills, no taxes, no responsibilities. He said the social workers always had jobs for him, but he'd never bother to show up. Just no interest. I think at one point they gave him a free apartment and then I no longer had to wake him up at 6am to get to the door of my office.
How was meeting sarc in real life?
I have experience with this.
I lived next to an Episcopalian church in San Francisco for several years, Pine and Gough? This was the early 1980s.
They began feeding the homeless breakfast at 6am. They would start lining up at 2-3am, and by 6am had pooped and peed on several doorsteps in the neighborhood. The priest was a poser; lived in a ritzy district with his lawyer wife, had a nice Mercedes, but drove a beater to the church. His response to neighbors asking him to serve breakfast later was to serve it earlier. He brought a bunch of the homeless to a neighborhood meeting to disrupt us.
It was absolutely clear that his breakfast feeds were responsible for the doorstep toilets. The proper response would been for the church to open up their restrooms or to put out a portapotty, but since his only goal was to look good, he had no interest in either spending money on portapotties or letting those filthy bums into his nice clean church.
I wonder how much of this church's problem with its neighbors is the same.
>>The proper response ...
burn down the church?
Nah, it's a pretty church, if it's the one I'm thinking of. Just shoot the asshat pastor. Repeat as needed with the replacements. The message will sink in eventually.
word.
Not only did the board miss that deadline, individual supervisors offered amendments to the ordinance that would weaken many of its deregulatory provisions.
Behold democracy in action.
"Woodbridge, Connecticut's zoning code prohibits business signs on private property that advertise out-of-town businesses."
How is that remotely constitutional? It definitely isn't content neutral.
That San Francisco is expensive because it takes forever to approve new housing isn't a new finding.
Yes, and the residents like it that way. Imagine what would happen if housing became cheap in SF and property values plummeted: a lot of people would be under water with their mortgages.
Much as I dislike SF and what it has turned into, this is the business of San Francisco voters only. It's not the business of Californians, the federal government, or Reason. If the people of SF want to keep property prices high and housing scarce, that's their choice.
Unless, of course, you're Stalin or a fake libertarian, who thinks that it is your job to dictate to people how to live.
Sure, but at what point did they collectively buy into this joint stock arrangement? Obviously it didn't happen en masse. It means individuals gradually got into this position as a perk on top of what they legitimately had to pay in, and some are getting screwed.
“What is `affordable housing’?” That’s the question an audience member practically badgered me with when I was running (LP) for NY assembly in 1988 and was on a panel to talk about housing policy. I could venture only, “It’s whatever you can afford,” which was clearly unsatisfactory so I couldn’t blame the audience memberr for pressing it.
Clearly “affordable housing” is some semi-technical “code” phrase. Its existence in connection with public policy regarding housing carries a stunning implication: that most housing is not affordable. Given anything approximating the ordinary meaning of “afford”, this means something is bizarre about the housing market that prevents it from being cleared by normal means, and/or that says common household/life budgeting advice about what one can afford is off by a lot. It says most people are paying more than they can afford, evidencing what’s usually considered a bad life decision.
So at least one thing is “off” here. The term “affordable” may be a mindfuck as applied to housing, or “affordability” is actually a meaningless term in general. Or it’s just code language to promote redistribution of certain finances into housing, or into certain people’s housing, to “sell” the idea as necessary. Like somehow most people can’t afford what the population, in aggregate, produces! Clearly by shuffling the expenses around we can’t actually make housing cheaper, right? Therefore housing value must be draining into some unaccountable hole that prevents us from recouping all the value we produce. Well, that's the implication, anyway, though I doubt it.
Yes, it's a mindfuck to set the terms of the conversation.
"Why are you against affordable housing?!"
But it's so transparent! How could it have such widespread acceptance? Then again, "bolshevik" (member of a majority), "healthy",...
From the linked story about eminent domain:
Ayn Rand would've been embarrassed to make up such a name.
I mean, seriously? Resembling “Tarbell” thematically to the topic, while evoking some character Mel Blanc would voice on radio or cartoon?
It's particularly silly, as there's a utility line easement already running near there that they could put the railroad on for free. I can't even tell where they actually want to go or who the new line would inconvenience, though.
Still, if they want it, they should just buy the damned land from people.
If San Franciscan property owners want to tear down their little Victorian and sell or partner with a developer to build a free market high rise and collect market rent, that is their right.
Here’s the part that makes this controversial…(IF) a San Francisco project has a STATE MANDATE for a percentage of deed restrictions( rent paid by taxpayers) in the new high rise. This mandate spreads the all of the costs of rent profits to homeowners who DO NOT want to sell their property. This is basically reverse rent control subsidies from Newsom, and a kickback to the developers who fund his campaign. California Taxpayers will essentially be funding Newsoms potus campaign from kickback deed restriction mandates from Newsom.
Libertarians would be wise to think about democracy on bans and mandate voting rights (similar to the tax payers bill of rights a ban/mandate bill of rights). Colorado, California, New Jersey, all the usual blue states mandating a private company to build taxpayer funded apartments.
^^^This makes a zoning discussion libertarian while free market housing will be built. The opposite of a TABOR is a mandate that the taxpayer, collectively, will subsidize rents for New Democrat voters and campaign contributors.