[silicon2401]

> Maybe X should relax the legal requirements of Y

That's a slippery slope. Lots of legal requirements exist to protect someone. Legal requirements for windows are pretty reasonable to ensure people have at least some bare minimum of access to natural light in their home, rather than just living in a box.

[lghh]

Seems to me like lots of people in SF would rather live in an indoor box than an outdoor box.

Why not let those without homes choose if they are willing to take the risks associated with ignoring those rules over l king on the streets?

[raydev]

> lots of people in SF would rather live in an indoor box than an outdoor box.

Yes, and people voluntarily placed themselves under indentured servitude before it was made illegal.

If there's a housing shortage, the solution isn't to remove bare minimum housing standards for everyone.

[entropicdrifter]

Because that's how you get the haves taking even greater advantage of the have-nots, to the point of injury, illness, and death in the name of slightly greater profits.

[lghh]

How? By letting them sleep inside? I don't understand.

[bluefirebrand]

By lowering acceptable living standards, the haves, aka the landlords, would be able to cheaply produce bottom of the barrel, barely acceptable living spaces and then since there is a housing crisis they could charge a premium for the have nots, aka the renters, in order to live in those shitty, barely acceptable homes.

[stavros]

Presumably an office space would still cost more than a homeless person could afford, so it's not economical to convert an office to ultra-cheap housing.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Presumably an office space would still cost more than a homeless person could afford, so it's not economical to convert an office to ultra-cheap housing

It may be something a marginally housed person could afford, though. Maybe that makes room in their budget for healthier food, addiction counseling or after-school tutoring. Or maybe they're already strained and would otherwise be on the street.

[jcadam]

An open floor plan office has plenty of space for rows of bunks. Better than sleeping outside.

[silicon2401]

> Why not let those without homes choose if they are willing to take the risks associated with ignoring those rules over l king on the streets?

I'd rather have a government that enforces a high quality of life.

[ethbr0]

As would we all, but we have to be cognizant that enforcing a high quality of life also means ignoring people who can't afford the raised minimum.

By and large, I'm a fan of American-style freedom-to-succeed-or-fail, but in the context of NIMBY anti-density housing supply crunches, it feels exceptionally cruel.

'We're going to have policies that limit supply and increase the cost of housing' + 'We're going to prevent you from finding other housing by making it illegal' is a heavy one-two punch.

[lghh]

Sure, but if the choice is this in the immediate term vs "a government that enforces a high quality of life" in the maybe-but-not-for-certain long term, I'd much rather take steps in that direction instead of waiting for some mythical perfect situation to present itself.

[trcarney]

Or maybe it's government involvement that has caused the whole issue in the first place and more government involvement would lead to an even bigger problem.

[whartung]

I can't say for certain, but I think most regulations about windows are about having an escape in case of disaster.

Specifically, there was house we were looking at, and one of the previous owners covered up the back porch.

However, one of the bedrooms used to overlook that back porch, and had a window on that wall.

They were not allowed to remove that window because "bedrooms have windows", even though the window was an interior window.

Similarly, we considered replacing our bedroom window with a bay window, but the code would not allow it because the windows were too small to allow egress.

[silicon2401]

I completely forgot about the fire thing, and that only strengthens my argument/stance. The Triangle fire was a terrible tragedy in American history during which a lot of women died not even because of lack of windows, but because doors and windows were barred. Now imagine how many people would be at risk if they didn't even have windows in the first place.

[coryrc]

The windows in a 50-story skyscraper are not very useful for escape.

[rileyphone]

No, they are not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impending_Death

[JumpCrisscross]

> Lots of legal requirements exist to protect someone

That someone is often the homeowners [1].

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-...

[silicon2401]

Paywall, can't read that

[dredmorbius]

There comes a time when one expects that experienced Internet and Web users know the usual workarounds, such as Archive.Is:

https://archive.is/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/...

[seanmcdirmid]

> Legal requirements for windows

These are mostly for fire safety, not quality of life. Turns out not having a window during a fire has killed lots of people.

[HereIGoAgain]

This is SF (and a major US city) we are talking about.. A whole shitload of those "requirements" are meant to keep prop values up and exert total control over who and what gets built and when.

[throwaway0a5e]

>Lots of legal requirements exist to protect someone.

SF is the poster child for what happens when a bunch of people incapable or unmotivated to engage in planning more than 5min into the future write a law about everyone's pet issue.

Clearly there's a balance to be struck and it's to be struck somewhere on the less regulatory side than it is now.

[google234123]

California has taken housing requirements to an extreme: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-broughel-hamilto...

[koheripbal]

In general, that may sometimes be true, but in the SF Bay Area, those restrictions on residential development have always been excessive and about protecting property values for existing home owners.