www.lesswrong.com/posts/PiW9CqgcWQrb8hcNR/how-to-solve-homelessness-what-specifi...

San Francisco’s Planning Department says SB 423 provides a ministerial path only for eligible projects, not for every apartment project that complies with zoning.

According to SF Planning’s SB 423 page, the projects that may be approved ministerially are limited to:

• code-complying projects with 2–9 dwelling units;
• code-complying projects with 10 dwelling units that meet San Francisco’s inclusionary affordable-housing requirements; and
• code-complying projects with 11+ dwelling units that meet those inclusionary requirements and include at least 10% of units restricted as affordable at specified AMI levels.

That directly contradicts the post’s statement that “any SF apartment project that follows the zoning rules” gets this treatment.

SF Planning also says SB 423 has preapplication requirements, including tribal consultation and, for projects in some neighborhoods, an informational hearing at the Planning Commission prior to submitting an application for ministerial approval. So the statement “No discretionary hearings” is overstated at minimum.

In addition, the San Francisco City Attorney’s public memo on SB 423 explains that although qualifying projects must be approved ministerially, the law still allows certain design review by a public body, including the Board of Supervisors, within time limits. That contradicts the categorical claim “No ... Board of Supervisors.”

So the post overstates SB 423 in three ways: it applies only to qualifying project categories, not all apartment projects; some projects still must go through a preapplication Planning Commission hearing; and the law does not categorically eliminate all Board of Supervisors involvement.

The post misstates the trigger and effect of the Voting Rights Act’s 1965 coverage formula.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, a jurisdiction was covered under Section 4 only if both of the following were true on the relevant date:

1. it maintained a “test or device” restricting voting, such as a literacy test or similar barrier; and
2. less than 50% of voting-age residents were registered or less than 50% voted in the 1964 presidential election.

So it was not true that “any county that had less than 50% registration” automatically fell under the law.

The post also overstates the consequence. DOJ explains that the targeted remedies were a suspension of tests/devices, Section 5 preclearance for voting changes, and the ability of the Attorney General to certify jurisdictions for federal examiners. The National Archives likewise summarizes that the Act provided for federal examiners in covered jurisdictions and required covered jurisdictions to obtain preclearance for changes in voting practices.

That is materially different from saying counties simply “would lose control of their own election process.” The law imposed specific federal oversight mechanisms on covered jurisdictions; it was not a universal under-50%-registration takeover rule.