|
Panfilo posted:What's stopping developers from building apartment complexes in outlying areas? Land is cheaper and with high density units you get a lot more renters/buyers per square mile. Not as profitable. Colin Mockery posted:But how do you convince developers to build something that won’t net them a profit? Maybe we should stop relying on “maximizing profits” to drive our housing policy?
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 14:19 |
|
|
Colin Mockery posted:But how do you convince developers to build something that won’t net them a profit? By tying it to things that will make them a profit. If they want to build luxury apartments or whatever, they have to supply x amount of low income housing. I know some cities do that now, but that number is way too low. Especially here in Orange County.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 17:57
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Not as profitable. So create state subsidies to encourage developers to build affordable housing then,tied to occupancy so they can't just plop down a bunch of overpriced condos out in the middle of nowhere. The commutes would suck but if it was in outlying areas they don't have to deal with NIMBYs nearly as much. And I feel like there is plenty of room between 'Unaffordable Luxury Apartment' and 'Flophouse'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
Why were the redevelopment agencies declared unconstitutional, I forget?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 18:05
|
|
|
CopperHound posted:Neighborhood laundry mats are good, more housing is good. Is there some reason we can't have both? Trabisnikof posted:I’m tired of this trickle down housing bullshit. * Heck, SF tried the opposite -- of hampering development of "luxury apartments" as hard as they could for many years -- and it failed miserably, it makes a really splendid counterexample. Colin Mockery posted:But how do you convince developers to build something that won’t net them a profit? All of these potential solutions have something in common, though: building taller. That's not something you can avoid, short of sprawling further out into the suburbs. Which is loving terrible for the environment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
revolther posted:Real talk: If rich dotcom pricks want to practice sustainable lives, farm to table food, schools a safe walk from home for their kids, then they need to invest in just about any other city in California. Everywhere in the state is building infrastructure for them trying to lure them. There is literally nothing geographically ideal for tech businesses about SF, it's just the appeal of selling "weekend in the big city" as a permanent lifestyle to a bunch of people with teenage level social intelligence. SF is an excellent example of how conservatives who crow about "business-friendliness" are full of poo poo. It is unapologetically liberal and yet the startup capital of the world now, practically overflowing in money. It still has its problems, but doubling down on stupid failed anti-housing policies just makes things worse and further pushes out the poor and working class. Waltzing Along posted:The owner wants to capitalize on the boom in the city and I can't blame him. But this will just be a case of the rich getting richer and the poor getting even more hosed. There isn't any $$ in catering to the poor in San Francisco when the rich are just as willing to throw their $$ in. Panfilo posted:What's stopping developers from building apartment complexes in outlying areas? Land is cheaper and with high density units you get a lot more renters/buyers per square mile. That said, absolutely there's still housing development happening in suburbs of the bay area too. The bay area has been prosperous enough to where developers build pretty much everywhere they can. Cicero fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Feb 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 18:19
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I’m tired of this trickle down housing bullshit. It seems to me the Bay Area is a working example of the law of supply and demand. We need more units period. Wealthy people are buying mediocre real estate because that’s all there is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
My neighbors where I live now are being driven out by rent increases just last month as tech workers who couldn't get cheap (for them) housing moved outward from SF. I'm seeing it happen, it's not theoretical. SF needs more housing, even if it's for rich people, or for people who would be rich if they weren't paying most of their paycheck out in rent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 18:53
|
|
|
Skyscraper posted:They've already started but if you mean in mainstream media, then that'll be when somebody Important wanders into one and dies or disappears. Why do I always scroll down and read the comments? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Why do I always scroll down and read the comments? There is always more, and it is always worse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
Skyscraper posted:My neighbors where I live now are being driven out by rent increases just last month as tech workers who couldn't get cheap (for them) housing moved outward from SF. I'm seeing it happen, it's not theoretical. SF needs more housing, even if it's for rich people, or for people who would be rich if they weren't paying most of their paycheck out in rent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Also, letting for-profit developers build doesn't stop the government from making public housing. We can -- and should -- have both. Also true!
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
Waltzing Along posted:I wonder when the reports of the huge growth of the homeless problem will start. It seems to be ignored. But this is the worst I have ever seen it. There are huge shanty towns in Oakland and smaller ones in San Francisco. Orange County, along the Santa Ana river, is basically a homeless city. That's Orange County. OC Register and LA Times have had stories almost daily on the homeless encampment and "cleanup" efforts. A federal judge just went down to the homeless encampments in OC yesterday to check out the area and make sure no more clearing takes place unless the county finds shelter for them first http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-oc-homeless-judge-20180214-story.html#nt=featured-content
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:OC Register and LA Times have had stories almost daily on the homeless encampment and "cleanup" efforts. I live a block away from that encampment. Is it an eyesore? Yes. Is it dangerous? Absolutely. But the county needs to have a plan on what to do with these people. Part of it is housing, but part of it is that the people don't want to move into available beds because of the restrictions placed on them. A family friend works at a shelter that had over 200 free beds and they went down and offered spots to people, and only a handful took them. People have a right to live the way the want to live, but they still have to abide by the rules of society. The Monday when they began booting people out, the number of homeless I saw on my 3 mile drive to work increased from 2 to 12. One dude was wearing just a garbage bag. I honestly don't know what the solution here is. I know they're looking at the private/public homeless camp they created in Texas, Haven or something like that, as a template.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 23:05
|
|
|
It's absolutely a state wide problem and reflects a massive failure of the state to properly allocate resources and get serious about managing growth. It's not a "big city" problem by any stretch these days. Humboldt county is almost entirely rural, but you can't drive through Eureka or Arcata without seeing a dozen homeless folks. Everyone who lives here knows it's a problem -- it's hard to ignore the traveler/runaway "trimmigrant" kids and dead-eyed meth zombies when you see them all over town, every single day -- but everyone just acts like there's nothing to be done or is waiting for someone else to fix it. The county took the bold, decisive step of evicting hundreds of people from a Eureka marsh (cheerfully nicknamed "the devil's playground") and made vague assurances about housing and shelters, but two years later, the only substantial change seems to be that instead of one part of Eureka being loving terrifying and the rest of the county merely kind of sketchy, now every little town along Humboldt Bay has its own merry band of slow-suicide addicts, life-skill impaired dropouts, and the untreated and unwashed mentally ill. Why is this such a problem in a place where land is cheap, disused industrial sites are everywhere, and even the biggest "cities" have loving cow pasture inside the city limits? Who can say? Maybe it's the lovely economy or our idiotic love affair with weed and burnout deadhead rastamon crust punk bullshit. Or maybe it's that the entire rental market is controlled by three companies that nakedly collude with each other and the greedy fucks at the local university have been increasing enrollment year after year without any thought toward housing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
Retail jobs not paying a living wage plus 1/2 our taxes going to a war machine are a major part of the problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 03:46
|
|
|
Waltzing Along posted:Retail jobs not paying a living wage plus 1/2 our taxes going to a war machine are a major part of the problem. Good thing retail jobs will be gone in the next ten years. Now we can all be chipped and tracked slaves to Amazon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 04:25
|
|
|
Also there's just not a lot of societal desire to tackle the issue in a non-punitive way outside the left (arguably the far left). A plurality of Americans still believe poverty is caused by bad decisions made on the part of the impoverished and/or general laziness. Your average person on the street who passes a homeless person thinks it is that person's fault for allowing themselves to become homeless. Ditto for drug addiction which is a whole other can of worms tied into America's incredibly lovely views on criminal justice. As a cherry on top mental illness is also still in the nascent stages of general social acceptance and people who fail as a result of it are more likely to be ridiculed and blamed than helped. Until a plurality of Americans look at a homeless person and see a failure of the system at large instead of a personal failing of the homeless themselves, it's only going to get worse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 04:51
|
|
|
Yeah, a huge part of the problem is that despite the stereotype of the "invisible" homeless, someone living on the streets is going to draw a lot of attention to themselves, most of it bad. People get narratives attached to them that may or may not be accurate that "explain" why they're the way they are and get in the way of rejoining the community. Once you've been stigmatized that way, it's pretty hard to just shrug it off, especially since street people usually wind up with criminal records. Of course, being homeless =/= sleeping "on the streets." My community also has a huge number of couch surfers, squatters, and car dwellers and even in a town that's unusually tolerant of those lifestyles, maintaining enough dignity to avoid the "burnout" stigma is essential for them to land on their feet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 06:35
|
|
|
Drive through Mountain View and you'll see a lot of RVs parked all over the place, these aren't road trippers they are homeless people that work in the very same area. Those RVs along El Camino directly adjacent to Stanford University? Most occupants are elderly and/or disabled. There is only one mobile home park in Palo Alto and it is pretty much occupied by disabled seniors who wouldn't have anywhere else to go if the park got sold (which almost happened many times).
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 06:56
|
|
|
It also does really weird things to the dating scene to have people whose "hookups" are like 50% just them looking for a soft bed and a warm shower (a couple homeless friends admitted to doing this, others do it but act like they're doing their "host" a favor). I also know a bunch of people who've gotten stuck in horrible off-and-on relationships because it's too hard to dump the person that pays the rent. Housing insecurity fucks people up
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 07:54
|
|
|
In San Francisco, there seem to be more RVs, as well. It seems that people are just saying F it on rent, and getting an RV. Park for free somewhere and have a lower monthly payment. Not the worst of ideas. Still, I can't wait for SF, the city of my birth, to fall into the sea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 14:57
|
|
|
Waltzing Along posted:These aren't nimbys. These are low income renters who have almost no power whatsoever. They are the poor. Not even middle class. The apartments are for the upper middle class. Waltzing Along posted:I wonder when the reports of the huge growth of the homeless problem will start. It seems to be ignored. http://politicalblindspot.com/us-poor/ quote:“The primary reason that poverty remains so high,” Sheldon Danziger, a University of Michigan economist said, “is that the benefits of a growing economy are no longer being shared by all workers as they were in the quarter-century following the end of World War II.” *Amazon may provide cells and cots for the inter-generational indentured! Hoep!
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 21:41
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:It is less possible to stop Cicero from white knighting rich real estate developer rear end than it is to house all the homeless for free. "Lookit this rear end in a top hat white-knighting grocery store Megacorps!" I only give a poo poo about developers to the extent that they provide something humans need to live. If we could get public housing programs like Vienna or Singapore I'd be more than fine with that too. Unfortunately that's politically infeasible at the moment and so we have to rely mostly on private industry, and then shithead anti-housing NIMBYs like you get in the way, because your precious ideological purity is more important than actually helping people or the environment. Who cares if the people pushed away by stupidly high housing prices move to sprawly suburbs in other states that cut into nature and further entrench car culture, right? Who cares if the working class people who stayed have to commute in from an hour away? Who cares if neighborhoods stay economically segregated because the minimum lot size precludes any housing units that a regular person could afford? At least we stuck it to those dirty developers! Cicero fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Feb 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 23:40
|
|
|
Waltzing Along posted:In San Francisco, there seem to be more RVs, as well. It seems that people are just saying F it on rent, and getting an RV. Park for free somewhere and have a lower monthly payment. Not the worst of ideas. Still, I can't wait for SF, the city of my birth, to fall into the sea. Buy a barge and park it in the Bay.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 23:42
|
|
|
I am 100% down for buying and furnishing a home-barge and renting it for cheap to homeless people, then watching SF liberals drown rather than stoop to asking it for shelter when climate change sinks their condominiums
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 00:11
|
|
|
Waltzing Along posted:In San Francisco, there seem to be more RVs, as well. It seems that people are just saying F it on rent, and getting an RV. Park for free somewhere and have a lower monthly payment. Not the worst of ideas. Still, I can't wait for SF, the city of my birth, to fall into the sea. San Rafael just passed some law/ordinance fairly recently that prevents people from parking RV's and stuff in certain areas because of this... I don't have any solutions but somehow getting the Bay Area real estate to not just be the plaything of the wealthy would probably be a good start Admiral Ray posted:Buy a barge and park it in the Bay. They've cracked down on that too at least in Richardson Bay! Though they've theoretically tried to make it more about getting rid of the empty and derelict anchor outs that people don't live in. There's a lot of water pollution that goes along with unregulated anchor outs though
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
Cicero posted:shithead anti-housing NIMBYs like you get in the way You can tell someone made a rich real estate tycoon cry when Cicero says...
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 00:26
|
|
|
It seems to be just you trying to dunk on this guy and he's making a lot of sense so I'm gonna take your accusations of class traitorism with a grain of salt
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 00:35
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:I am 100% down for buying and furnishing a home-barge and renting it for cheap to homeless people, then watching SF liberals drown rather than stoop to asking it for shelter when climate change sinks their condominiums  I looked into the cost of a barge because lol at my ever owning a real house and they aren't terrible but getting them into decent condition and all that is too much to realistically do. Another option is to buy an old racing ship for cheap and live in that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 00:55
|
|
|
This reminds me of that BFC thread with the guy trying to move into a houseboat to save money. Although in this case it makes more sense just because it's politically challenging to put homeless shelters pretty much anywhere. We really need regional housing authorities that can distribute them more evenly and sensibly rather than listening to "neighborhood input", which is just code for "how many rich, well connected people can you get to show up at a town hall?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 01:04
|
|
|
California, where even the benches in the middle of nowhere in a redwood forest state park have anti-homeless dividers on them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 16:50
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:California, where even the benches in the middle of nowhere in a redwood forest state park have anti-homeless dividers on them.  https://hostiledesign.org/products/design-crime-sticker-sheet
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 17:07
|
|
|
It sucks for disabled people waiting for the bus otherwise, especially outside of a 7-11 or liquor store. People will lie on benches and sleep all day, and the disabled people waiting for the bus have nowhere to sit. Lose-lose really. Make enough of a stink about the hostile design benches and most municipalities will probably fix the problem by simply removing the entire bench entirely which I have seen done when they remodeled train/bus stations 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:It sucks for disabled people waiting for the bus otherwise, especially outside of a 7-11 or liquor store. People will lie on benches and sleep all day, and the disabled people waiting for the bus have nowhere to sit. Lose-lose really. Make enough of a stink about the hostile design benches and most municipalities will probably fix the problem by simply removing the entire bench entirely which I have seen done when they remodeled train/bus stations I love seeing bus stops where they clearly just put in the absolute bare minimum despite serving incredibly busy routes. Like maybe a simple canopy and that's it. Or just a post planted in some grass with nowhere really to even stand without getting in people's way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 20:52
|
|
|
Here in LA a lot of crowded bus stops are just a sign on the sidewalk.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
In some places a sign and a sidewalk is an unimaginable luxury. https://usa.streetsblog.org/category/special-reports/sorriest-bus-stops-2017/
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 21:17
|
|
|
Combed Thunderclap posted:I love seeing bus stops where they clearly just put in the absolute bare minimum despite serving incredibly busy routes. As you might imagine nice bus shelters cost a lot more to install and maintain, and there isn’t always room for them. There was a dude in the political cartoons thread that wanted all multi-stall restrooms converted to individual gender neutral rooms. Yes it would be ideal, but come on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 02:31
|
|
|
withak posted:In some places a sign and a sidewalk is an unimaginable luxury. i always think the laziest ones are a power pole with "42" painted on or something. this includes a significant amount of stops in sf too which is weird since they have the money to put at least a sign out, but at least there's a sidewalk
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 02:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 14:19 |
|
|
Hell, I'm just happy if my bus station restrooms have doors on the stalls.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 02:57
|
|
