Scott Wiener: "The understanding of a child"

Richard Hall noticed recently that Scott Wiener had "the understanding of a child applying over-simplified logic when it comes to planning." 

Wiener has had a childlike approach to other issues, like CEQA (Gee, why should a project I support be delayed?) and high-speed rail (Gee, wouldn't it be great to have a high-speed train in California?), and subways in San Francisco (Gee, wouldn't it be great to have a subway under Geary Blvd?). 

Not always easy to tell whether Wiener is lying or simply doesn't know what he's talking about, but I call him a liar when he routinely makes no effort to inform himself on issues.

And there's also his outright demagoguery...

Later: I should also mention Wiener's attempt to make it harder for city residents to put measures on the ballot.

Bob Silvestri in The Marin Post:

...Scott Wiener was recently quoted in Wired Magazine saying,

“It makes me nuts when I see wealthy Nimby homeowners in Marin and elsewhere suddenly becoming defenders of low-income people of color. These are communities that fought tooth and nail to keep low-income people out.”

Race-baiting allegations such as this, constantly repeated by Wiener and his supporters, imply that public opinion against high density development is racially motivated, rather than being based on what the record shows are the real objections: traffic congestion, environmental damage, lack of water supply, impacts on infrastructure and public services, etc. 

If his allegations were true, why are communities of color in major metropolitan centers against SB 827 and other such pro-gentrification legislation? (Click here to read a letter in opposition by 37 major progressive, grassroots community groups in Los Angeles).

The biggest irony here, of course, is that SB 827 doesn’t even require that low income housing be built for all those low income people that Wiener claims to care so much about. In fact, his legislation reduces (SB 35) or removes (SB 827) local inclusionary zoning as a requirement. Wiener just likes to use low-income families as a useful talking point...

Many people, myself included, have enumerated the fallacies embodied in this developer’s wet dream legislation that Wiener is proposing. But, since being a taxpaying resident who owns a single family home immediately makes one’s comments somehow tainted and dismissible, the current battle of rhetoric quickly devolves into a pointless and tasteless standoff.

In these truly dim times, however, there are voices speaking up that are above reproach.

As a child of the 60s, I never would have imagined that I would be rooting for the FBI to save us from Washington DC politics. More ironically, I never would have imagined myself being grateful to planning staff in San Francisco, for being a voice of reason.

Their recent comments on SB 827 are a case in point. Those comments, submitted to the SF Planning Commission, show what a clueless planning neophyte Wiener really is, even when it comes to his own city. It helps unveil Wiener’s complete ignorance about what a General Plan is, how and why cities conduct planning and anticipate outcomes, or the variety of planning regulatory challenges and nuances that exist in the most populous state in the Union with the 5th largest economy in the world.

The February 5, 2018 comments by the San Francisco Planning Department are not a public policy response. Clearly, the staff is being respectful of the fact that turning their comments into public policy positions is the purview of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. So, they tread carefully in their language. However, there is no doubt that they believe SB 827 is divorced from the City’s planning realities and would do far more harm than good.

In their initial summary they note:

The bill would have its greatest impact on the State’s core metropolitan regions with more extensive transit service. In San Francisco, this would be virtually the entire city. In the rest of the Bay Area, large swaths of Oakland, Berkeley, and San Jose would be affected, as would all areas right around Caltrain, BART, and SMART stations, various singular corridors along both sides of the Bay… and areas around ferry terminals.

They go on to point out that the bill would also prohibit the enforcement of

Any design standard that restricts the applicant’s ability to construct the maximum number of units consistent with any applicable building code.

It’s important to consider that cities such as San Francisco are supposed to be Wiener’s base: the places you would think would be most supportive of his vision, because they generally share the overriding goals of providing more housing near public transportation in their General Plan and Housing Element, and because they share his belief that aggressive housing development will bring down housing costs. So why aren’t they supportive of SB 827?

Although the General Plan, as the embodiment of the City’s guiding policy document for the evolution of San Francisco, shares these key objectives with SB 827, the General Plan also explicitly emphasizes the importance of planning for land use change in consultation with communities and in consideration of a variety of relevant factors in the context of each area—urban form, open space, historic preservation, and other factors.

And that it’s important to consider

the practicalities of implementing the bill and other key inconsistencies with General Plan policies, particularly the importance of maintaining key urban design standards related to livability, walkability, and context.

It is telling that these observations are essentially identical to the objections voiced by every city council and planning agency in suburban counties, such as Marin.

The SF Planners go on to point out that SB 827 does not address the demolition or removal of existing affordable housing units, potentially opening the door to runaway gentrification, and that the bill would significantly up-zone most of the city (by their calculation 96% of San Francisco would be affected). This would have the impact of over-riding their typical 45 foot height limit and increasing it to 85 feet on almost all major streets in San Francisco...