Dan Federman
@dfed.me
Infrastructure. Urbanism. Biking. Mobile apps & frameworks.
Reposted by Dan Federman
When Oakland had a fight over demolishing the ruin that was once Biff's coffee shop, I started calling the preservationists who were older than the building "historic".
They did not like that.
They did not like that.
November 24, 2025 at 12:06 AM
When Oakland had a fight over demolishing the ruin that was once Biff's coffee shop, I started calling the preservationists who were older than the building "historic".
They did not like that.
They did not like that.
Unfortunately you aren’t the one running for election this coming year.
November 23, 2025 at 6:15 PM
Unfortunately you aren’t the one running for election this coming year.
You’re either ignorant or lying. Either way, this is getting boring.
November 23, 2025 at 5:42 PM
You’re either ignorant or lying. Either way, this is getting boring.
Never once? Are you ignoring Breed’s early FZP maps?
November 23, 2025 at 5:42 PM
Never once? Are you ignoring Breed’s early FZP maps?
I am a huge fan of blanket upzoning of owner occupied SFHs in the Richmond and Sunset. Is Connie Chan?
November 23, 2025 at 5:41 PM
I am a huge fan of blanket upzoning of owner occupied SFHs in the Richmond and Sunset. Is Connie Chan?
Okay. But you’re laying the results at the feet of YIMBY and that is both detached from reality and just a little bit weird.
November 23, 2025 at 5:38 PM
Okay. But you’re laying the results at the feet of YIMBY and that is both detached from reality and just a little bit weird.
Man the number of city hall meetings I’ve given comment at where I’ve advocated for apartments to be built in high resource areas (including mine!)… it’s a lot. The hell are you on about?
November 23, 2025 at 5:34 PM
Man the number of city hall meetings I’ve given comment at where I’ve advocated for apartments to be built in high resource areas (including mine!)… it’s a lot. The hell are you on about?
Yes because it is totally possible to start the zoning plan from scratch at this exact moment. Please be serious.
November 23, 2025 at 5:32 PM
Yes because it is totally possible to start the zoning plan from scratch at this exact moment. Please be serious.
I could be less generous and mention that reps you’ve endorsed like Connie Chan, Gordon Mar, and Hillary Ronen were pretty staunchly against upzoning SFH areas, and pushed back against Breed’s original FZP.
The call is coming from inside the house my guy.
The call is coming from inside the house my guy.
November 23, 2025 at 5:32 PM
I could be less generous and mention that reps you’ve endorsed like Connie Chan, Gordon Mar, and Hillary Ronen were pretty staunchly against upzoning SFH areas, and pushed back against Breed’s original FZP.
The call is coming from inside the house my guy.
The call is coming from inside the house my guy.
I don’t know if you know this but the biggest swaths of SFH areas in SF had not elected YIMBY legislators during the majority of the Family Zoning planning cycle (which started in ~2020).
You’re knocking over straw people again.
You’re knocking over straw people again.
November 23, 2025 at 5:26 PM
I don’t know if you know this but the biggest swaths of SFH areas in SF had not elected YIMBY legislators during the majority of the Family Zoning planning cycle (which started in ~2020).
You’re knocking over straw people again.
You’re knocking over straw people again.
If you can get the votes for it, sure. Not willing to make perfect the enemy of the good though.
November 23, 2025 at 5:24 PM
If you can get the votes for it, sure. Not willing to make perfect the enemy of the good though.
You can be less generous but we both know that framing is wild.
Plus there’s the part where I’d love to see more upzoning in SFH areas, and more upzoning for blocks off of main boulevards. As would most YIMBYs.
The folk arguing for less SFH upzoning were not the YIMBYs 🤦♂️
Plus there’s the part where I’d love to see more upzoning in SFH areas, and more upzoning for blocks off of main boulevards. As would most YIMBYs.
The folk arguing for less SFH upzoning were not the YIMBYs 🤦♂️
November 23, 2025 at 5:20 PM
You can be less generous but we both know that framing is wild.
Plus there’s the part where I’d love to see more upzoning in SFH areas, and more upzoning for blocks off of main boulevards. As would most YIMBYs.
The folk arguing for less SFH upzoning were not the YIMBYs 🤦♂️
Plus there’s the part where I’d love to see more upzoning in SFH areas, and more upzoning for blocks off of main boulevards. As would most YIMBYs.
The folk arguing for less SFH upzoning were not the YIMBYs 🤦♂️
I like the phrasing of “chose not to say anything”
Like purity tests are more important than passing legislation that will improve lives. Like helping ensure Affordable housing gets built in the Richmond.
Like purity tests are more important than passing legislation that will improve lives. Like helping ensure Affordable housing gets built in the Richmond.
November 23, 2025 at 5:14 PM
I like the phrasing of “chose not to say anything”
Like purity tests are more important than passing legislation that will improve lives. Like helping ensure Affordable housing gets built in the Richmond.
Like purity tests are more important than passing legislation that will improve lives. Like helping ensure Affordable housing gets built in the Richmond.
Sigh. What part of “necessary but insufficient” are you not understanding? Or are you just continuing to argue in bad faith?
November 23, 2025 at 5:05 PM
Sigh. What part of “necessary but insufficient” are you not understanding? Or are you just continuing to argue in bad faith?
Because greenfield development is the thing that my crew advocates for? Right. This knocking over of straw men is just noise.
Again, these units were entitled in a pre-YIMBY world, with pre-YIMBY requirements. The fact that they haven’t been built should not be laid at the feet of YIMBY.
Again, these units were entitled in a pre-YIMBY world, with pre-YIMBY requirements. The fact that they haven’t been built should not be laid at the feet of YIMBY.
November 23, 2025 at 4:48 PM
Because greenfield development is the thing that my crew advocates for? Right. This knocking over of straw men is just noise.
Again, these units were entitled in a pre-YIMBY world, with pre-YIMBY requirements. The fact that they haven’t been built should not be laid at the feet of YIMBY.
Again, these units were entitled in a pre-YIMBY world, with pre-YIMBY requirements. The fact that they haven’t been built should not be laid at the feet of YIMBY.
Means testing was added in SB8 (a couple years later IIRC) due to lobbying from LA legislators. LA Legislators are your strongest coalition partners.
November 23, 2025 at 4:45 PM
Means testing was added in SB8 (a couple years later IIRC) due to lobbying from LA legislators. LA Legislators are your strongest coalition partners.
Sure, the folk who have entitlements on radioactive land are gonna start building tomorrow
Or the folk with entitlements on land that’ll be underwater before the 30 year mortgage term completes
Or the folk who were entitled under infeasibly high Affordable housing requirements
Come on man
Or the folk with entitlements on land that’ll be underwater before the 30 year mortgage term completes
Or the folk who were entitled under infeasibly high Affordable housing requirements
Come on man
November 23, 2025 at 4:26 PM
Sure, the folk who have entitlements on radioactive land are gonna start building tomorrow
Or the folk with entitlements on land that’ll be underwater before the 30 year mortgage term completes
Or the folk who were entitled under infeasibly high Affordable housing requirements
Come on man
Or the folk with entitlements on land that’ll be underwater before the 30 year mortgage term completes
Or the folk who were entitled under infeasibly high Affordable housing requirements
Come on man
Moreover, do you disagree with the analysis that SB 330 (written by a YIMBY-endorsed legislator!) established a right to return for low-income tenants? Where low-income in this city is a little over $90k/yr in income for a single person?
Again, you are not engaging in good faith.
Again, you are not engaging in good faith.
November 23, 2025 at 4:23 PM
Moreover, do you disagree with the analysis that SB 330 (written by a YIMBY-endorsed legislator!) established a right to return for low-income tenants? Where low-income in this city is a little over $90k/yr in income for a single person?
Again, you are not engaging in good faith.
Again, you are not engaging in good faith.
There’s a big difference between a specific parcel being upzoned and the likelihood of demolition. Particularly when combined with the tenant protections included in the family zoning plan: sfplanning.org/sites/defaul...
You were fear mongering low-income residents for political clout. It’s gross.
You were fear mongering low-income residents for political clout. It’s gross.
sfplanning.org
November 23, 2025 at 4:23 PM
There’s a big difference between a specific parcel being upzoned and the likelihood of demolition. Particularly when combined with the tenant protections included in the family zoning plan: sfplanning.org/sites/defaul...
You were fear mongering low-income residents for political clout. It’s gross.
You were fear mongering low-income residents for political clout. It’s gross.
For that brief moment before he changes the subject, yes
November 23, 2025 at 4:13 PM
For that brief moment before he changes the subject, yes
Also the tens of thousands of entitled units you refer to were entitled more than a decade before Scott’s streamlining (of permitting and entitlement!) bills were passed. If anything, these units not being built is a repudiation of the housing policy you have advocated perpetuating.
November 23, 2025 at 3:56 PM
Also the tens of thousands of entitled units you refer to were entitled more than a decade before Scott’s streamlining (of permitting and entitlement!) bills were passed. If anything, these units not being built is a repudiation of the housing policy you have advocated perpetuating.