[Lukeas14]

I once spent an hour sitting in the SF planning office on Mission and it was the most eye opening experience in regards to the city's building issues. Most of the discussions are done in the open so you can hear the conversations between the planners and people looking to get permits. Almost every convo started with "...so your permit looks good but I won't approve it until you make [some irrelevant, arbitrary change]". They would look through historical Google Maps images and find temporary backyard sheds, windows that had been replaced or door frames that were painted and refuse to issue until these changes were reverted.

I understand the need of a planning department to enforce safety codes, plan large construction like the Salesforce tower and make traffic decisions. But every discussion I heard that day was a planner making completely subjective decisions that, in my mind, shouldn't be anybody's business but the building owner. No wonder we have problems building enough housing when so much effort is exerted dealing with such minor design decisions.

[oppositelock]

It's not just SF, I sat in on some such meetings in Mountain View. It's petty tyrants in positions of power showing the plebes the extent of their authority. One of them even acknowledged that everything was up to code in a restaurant, but they wanted changes made anyway due to subjective aesthetics.

[zip1234]

Almost every single zoning rule or HOA rule out there is based on subjective aesthetics without taking into account the immense tradeoffs.

[kapuasuite]

And somehow this all passes Constitutional muster...