Deputy Speaker Williams round 2: Mangin on guardrails for adjudication vs policy advocacy

I mean,

You and I have both heard many times over the years homeowners talk about the fact that, you know, for instance, their kids can't buy a home in the neighborhoods they grew up in.

They bought their house for X amount back in 1970, whatever, and now prices in the neighborhood are so expensive that they would have never been able to buy, their kids can't buy.

And, you know, what I wrote in my response was just trying to indicate that the housing shortage doesn't just affect low-income renters in particular parts of the city.

It affects us all.

It affects, you know, we hear complaints from lower-density neighborhoods about illegal subdivisions or overflowing trash cans or overcrowded schools.

And some of the runaway housing costs have expressed themselves through, you know, taxes that go up way faster than homeowners who bought in 1970, whatever, are able to keep up with.

And those are all lesser discussed.

aspects of the housing shortage and that's all I meant to indicate in that response too that the housing shortage hurts homeowners too.

I appreciate that.

You have said that you are a by-the-book lawyer and planner and the BSA authority is highly circumscribed.

If an application comes before you involving a predominantly black homeowner community which

I have an example of that, and I think I briefly spoke to you about that, where residents submit credible evidence of legally relevant neighborhood impacts.

Can you commit that you will evaluate that evidence on its own merits rather than starting from a presumption that more housing is inherently anti-displacement?

Yes, I can commit that I would consider that input on its own merit in terms of, you know, my being a by-the-book lawyer.

Because, you know, to the extent people know me, they know me as like this pro-housing guy, I will often have, you know, questions from lawyers being like, if you interpret the zoning this way, that means, you know, 100 extra units.

Can we get it done?

And I can't tell you how often you take a look.

The law doesn't quite support that approach to a particular application or a land use review process, and I will always be the first person to convey that information, despite the fact that it may result in an outcome that results in less housing.

Or requires more process.

I have no problem with that at all.

Great.

So,

My concern is not whether you and I agree, as you know, we had a very extensive conversation on housing economics.

It's truly whether you can distinguish policy advocacy from adjudication.

So what guardrails will you use as chair to ensure that your published views, although I know very old and people evolve,

you know, in reference to exclusionary zoning, supply and neighborhood opposition, do not predetermine how you view the people who appear before you.

Right, and thank you for that question.

I think the answer to the last question is relevant here, that when facing some of these really difficult zoning interpretation issues at city planning,

The first stop is always the text of the law that applies in that situation, and it limits what you can do in a given situation, and I have no problem with that.

I think, if anything, I'm known at City Planning as being a conservative interpreter of the City Planning Commissions and City Planning's authority, and I would carry that over to BSA as well.

Like I said, being old school around variances, it was not intended to be an end run around rezonings.

It was intended to be a relief valve for sites that meet a very specific set of criteria.

Similarly with...

Some of the GCL waivers for map streets for residential access.

I know

In recent years, those requirements have been tightened up as well, and I support that.

That's as it should be.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.