|
incoherent posted:https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/21/eric-garcetti-iowa-477573 I really don’t feel like he’s done all that much as the mayor of LA that would make me think he’d be a many sort of decent president. I mean he could probably tow the line ok but eh.
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 00:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 16:25 |
|
|
Apologies for continuing to crash calthread https://twitter.com/DSA_LosAngeles/status/976943940359241728 When do you think they'll find out that the rich homeowners who join them in opposing density actually oppose public housing too?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 02:10
|
|
|
The DSA is really loving dumb.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 02:32
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Apologies for continuing to crash calthread Oh honey no... AngryBooch posted:The DSA is really loving dumb. Nah, just the California branches.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 04:19
|
|
|
Somebody please explain to me the stance of opposing more housing because it puts money in the pockets of developers, while also espousing that we need more housing. I uh... don't think you can have one without the other?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 04:27
|
|
|
AngryBooch posted:The DSA is really loving dumb.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 04:28
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Somebody please explain to me the stance of opposing more housing because it puts money in the pockets of developers, while also espousing that we need more housing. I uh... don't think you can have one without the other? Developers are not the same thing as construction companies. Developers plan, build, own, and sell/rent housing. The DSA is making a misguided push for public housing, built, owned, and sold by the government instead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 04:31
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Somebody please explain to me the stance of opposing more housing because it puts money in the pockets of developers, I'm talking poo poo where the locals pay $950 for a 1/1, but the MiniStudio is offered for 2650 (but you get access to the Yoga studio, there's a Starbucks on the ground floor, and the Outdoor Spacuzzi/Firepit Chillout might be available for you to use). No one really benefits from 4/3 Townhomes that start in the low 750k range, for example.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 04:34
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Somebody please explain to me the stance of opposing more housing because it puts money in the pockets of developers, while also espousing that we need more housing. I uh... don't think you can have one without the other? It's the wrong kind of housing for the wrong kind of people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 04:34
|
|
|
I mean yeah public housing would be fantastic but what's the feasibility that it could realistically happen on a wide enough scale to have an impact? Because if unless there's a really good shot at pulling it off, more housing is more housing.FilthyImp posted:No one really benefits from 4/3 Townhomes that start in the low 750k range, for example. Do luxury townhomes fit the definition of "high density housing near transit centers" that the bill calls for though?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 04:59
|
|
|
The primary legitimate (IMO) opposition to SB827 appears to be the existing tenants who fear being evicted in areas that will be upzoned. https://twitter.com/uhshanti/status/976969711568105472 By the way this is a very good thread criticizing the DSA announcement: https://twitter.com/tdfischer_/status/976948110290124800 "I congratulate the authors on once again standing up a caricature of YIMBYs and spend several pages knocking it down with a great smashing and gnawing of noisemaking. Its extremely important we draw battle lines instead of uniting against the capitalist notion of homeownership." Cup Runneth Over fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Mar 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 05:07
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:The primary legitimate (IMO) opposition to SB827 appears to be the existing tenants who fear being evicted in areas that will be upzoned. If we're talking about legitimate reasons, I want to hear more about what (real) experts think about the fear that if you can't have public transportation without also allowing high-density housing, communities will respond by rejecting both and blocking attempts to expand public transit into their areas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 05:15
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Ok, this one happens in LA a lot. A developer will take an old lot, or a strip mall, or a Burger King, and create Lofts, Luxe Apartments or Condos/Townhomes whose base rent (for like a studio 403sqft) is some ridiculous multiplier of what same rents in the area are. If you're building 400sqft units, you're turning that old lot/strip mall/burger king into super dense housing, which is good and lowers housing prices. If you're offering places far above market, no one will lease them. You only get huge rent discrepancies between equivalent places when rent control comes into play. If a $2650 studio is getting rented out, the $950 one isn't actually available for someone moving into the area or changing apartments. 'Luxury apartment' doesn't really mean anything besides the building being new. Putting modern style interiors in a new apartment building costs the same as older style stuff, and no one is going to purposely choose things that are out of fashion. A luxury apartment today will be a middle-of-the road apartment in 10 years when the finishes are scuffed up and tastes have changed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 05:50
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Somebody please explain to me the stance of opposing more housing because it puts money in the pockets of developers, while also espousing that we need more housing. I uh... don't think you can have one without the other? A few cities, including Seattle as a specific example have had building booms which resulted in more affordable housing at the 150%+ area median income level, but which developers stopped the pipeline for new projects once the luxury market was full, so the top end saw a 3-5% decline in rents but the rest of the market was unaffected. CA DSA chapters feel that without changes to SB827, we're going to just see a luxury housing boom that doesn't have any effect on the low and moderate income rents. The common argument by YIMBYs is that current luxury housing will become affordable at a moderate income in 30 years, DSA says, hey, 30 years is plenty of time to change policies and get poo poo built that is affordable sooner. There's specific policy changes that they suggest at the end of the article that would make them support SB827. quote:-Add measures to ensure that new development occurs in affluent single-family neighborhoods and not exclusively in low-income communities with a history of racialized divestment. edit: full disclosure, I'm a SF DSA member. I am not on the housing committee that discussed this with other CA DSA chapters though. fermun fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Mar 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 06:46
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:If you're building 400sqft units, you're turning that old lot/strip mall/burger king into super dense housing, which is good and lowers housing prices.  You turn them into gentrification vectors because no one in the neighborhood is going to be able to buy those. I mean, yeah, sure, you're making more housing and adding to supply. That's not really helpful when those developments are helping to price you out of your 1980s apartment block. quote:If you're offering places far above market, no one will lease them. quote:'Luxury apartment' doesn't really mean anything besides the building being new. Putting modern style interiors in a new apartment building costs the same as older style stuff, and no one is going to purposely choose things that are out of fashion. A multi-use development in my neighboorhood said posted:Fireside retreat, Roof deck lounge, 24-hour high endurance, two-story fitness zones with flex space & towel service, Resort-style heated, saltwater pool with entertainment, lounging & grilling areas, Virtual fitness trainer with more than 300 classes to choose from, Saltwater spa, Game lounge with billiards, shuffleboard, foosball & board games, Pet-friendly, Paw spa pet grooming lounge, Off-leash bark park with controlled access I'm talking about the kind of apartments that appeal to young workers and make it so they don't have to go down and interact with the neighborhood because all the amenities make it like a fancy dorm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 06:49
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:https://twitter.com/tdfischer_/status/976948110290124800 Ah yes, simultaneously criticizing someone for standing up to a caricature of YIMBYs while also creating a caricature of DSA, when the first bullet point in what changes would be needed to make DSA support an amended SB827 is to stop this from happening, which this same person acknowledges later. East Bay YIMBYs are the one YIMBY group that's not hardcore right wing libertarian, as I understand it, so I wish that she'd actually argue in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 06:54
|
|
|
quote:-Add measures to ensure that new development occurs in affluent single-family neighborhoods and not exclusively in low-income communities with a history of racialized divestment. But also complaining how those low-income communities wouldn't benefit from this because they lack the required public transit infrastructure. quote:-Mandate that a high percentage of the new transit-oriented development be designated affordable at extremely low-income, very low-income, and low-income levels. How exactly does this mesh with the first point? Do they really expect affluent single-family neighborhoods to accept a ton of new extremely-to-moderately low-income housing? quote:-Mandate that new units built from SB 827 accept housing vouchers. Sure. Worth boycotting it over? Nah. quote:-Include value capture provisions such that value created by public transit development is returned to the public in taxes. Could they be more specific, please? quote:-Impose a temporary rent freeze on buildings surrounding new development enabled by SB 827. If you are going to go all-in on the ideology, then demand rent control, not a "temporary rent freeze." quote:-Pass legislation to raise funds from short term rentals and to mitigate the impact of short-term rental services, like AirBnB, taking units off the market. This makes this read more like a list of demands than a list of suggested improvements. This has nothing to do with the bill, only the DSA SF's policy wishlist. quote:-Develop programs to ensure ownership opportunities of new housing in communities of color in order to combat the continued existence of redlining. This also contradicts the very first suggestion. Also contradicts this:  quote:-Target funding from the upcoming $3B November housing bond to be allocated for land acquisition and the construction of 100% subsidized, deeply affordable housing in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color targeted by upzoning. Again, strong-armed policy proposal. This one is at least loosely related to the bill. It's not an improvement to SB 827, though, but rather a demand towards state budgeting. quote:Allow not-for-profit and public development proposals a first -right of acquisition on upzoned parcels. This is a good idea, and should be pushed for aggressively without the senseless separatism. quote:-Amend the companion bill, SB 828, to study and analyze the racialized impacts of high-end development. Factor race and class impacts into regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) goals. Are you boycotting SB 828 too? Why not direct this criticism at it instead of demanding changes to it in order to support 827? fermun posted:Ah yes, simultaneously criticizing someone for standing up to a caricature of YIMBYs while also creating a caricature of DSA, when the first bullet point in what changes would be needed to make DSA support an amended SB827 is to stop this from happening, which this same person acknowledges later. This is not a caricature of DSA SF, this announcement is extremely FYGM hardline ideology. The co-chair of DSA SF spends a lot of her time on Twitter grinding axes against "YIMBYs" and you are doing the exact same thing in this post, basically proving Victoria's point. It's not a surprise to me if there is no good faith argument between these two groups if DSA SF is so overtly hostile towards the movement supporting 827. Cup Runneth Over fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Mar 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 07:39
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:But also complaining how those low-income communities wouldn't benefit from this because they lack the required public transit infrastructure. Cup Runneth Over posted:How exactly does this mesh with the first point? Do they really expect affluent single-family neighborhoods to accept a ton of new extremely-to-moderately low-income housing? Cup Runneth Over posted:Sure. Worth boycotting it over? Nah. Cup Runneth Over posted:If you are going to go all-in on the ideology, then demand rent control, not a "temporary rent freeze."  Obviously you haven't read the article. Cup Runneth Over posted:This makes this read more like a list of demands than a list of suggested improvements. This has nothing to do with the bill, only the DSA SF's policy wishlist. Cup Runneth Over posted:This also contradicts the very first suggestion. Also contradicts this: Cup Runneth Over posted:This is not a caricature of DSA SF, this announcement is extremely FYGM hardline ideology. The co-chair of DSA SF spends a lot of her time on Twitter grinding axes against "YIMBYs" and you are doing the exact same thing in this post, basically proving Victoria's point. It's not a surprise to me if there is no good faith argument between these two groups if DSA SF is so overtly hostile towards the movement supporting 827.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 08:10
|
|
|
fermun posted:These aren't an all-or-nothing demand list to support it. You'd know that if you had read the article. These are suggestions to improve the bill as it currently stands, and the current bill as stands defines transit infrastructure based on bus route frequency, which can be changed with relative ease by rich communities, so they want something more than just current bus route frequencies. It's not unreasonable to want a longer-term guarantee of public transit routes. I never implied they were all-or-nothing. I only said that most of them had nothing to do with the bill, and wouldn't improve it specifically in any way, and it was clearly just a policy wishlist. The problem is also that many of these demands are kind of contradictory, so it reads less like a focused plan to improve the bill, and more like kicking and screaming over progressive darlings and demanding they be allowed have their cake, and eat it, too. fermun posted:There's no mandate at all now, how do you expect for housing to be built for low income levels under SB827 SB827 is about high-density housing, not low-income housing, so I guess I don't specifically expect it? If the bill were amended to mandate low-income housing as well, I would think that's just fine. But again, you don't want housing to be built in low-income neighborhoods, so how do you expect that to be accomplished? Do you think that the very same people who already oppose SB827 will not oppose it with renewed vigor if it means a ton of low-income housing will have to be built in their wealthy neighborhoods? I can understand demanding that housing built in low-income areas be low-income in order to prevent gentrification, but the DSA didn't demand that. fermun posted:Again, not an all-or-nothing demand list. You in your previous point don't care if housing is built for low-income housing, so housing vouchers are going to be necessary. If housing vouchers are necessary, then make a push to amend SB 827 to force developers to accept housing vouchers. The problem is, I'm gonna quote the DSA LA on this: "Forget SB 827." The DSA doesn't seem to care whether 827 is amended or not. They want it to die, not be improved. They're not interested in pushing reforms that would increase the benefits of it, they aren't interested in mobilizing their members behind it, they're coming out swinging against it because, uhhh, capitalism, let's chase the Prop 13 repeal unicorn instead. And in the loving cruellest of ironies, the DSA SF housing co-chair retweeted this from Tenants Together in support of #RentControlNow:  But gently caress SB 827, am I right? *patiently sits in fire until public housing is approved* fermun posted:
You posted the list of suggestions. I reviewed the list of suggestions. If I have to read the article to actually get the real list of suggestions, then make a new list of suggestions. The demand is for rent freezes, not rent control. Demand rent control if you're going to pull this schtick. Making an off-handed reference to how people should support it in the article means nothing. No poo poo the DSA supports rent control. Why, then, have you asked for rent freezes, and not rent control, if you're hardlining ideological purity? fermun posted:This was written by many California DSA chapters. SF DSA has the least need for this as SF has already implemented policies in January which resulted in roughly 2600 units which had been formerly held as short term AirBNB rentals hitting the longterm rental market in the past 2 months. I'm aware of this; the DSA LA is the one which posted it, after all. But DSA SF members (like yourself) have been campaigning hard for it, and the housing co-chair of the DSA SF all but claimed credit for it, so it feels pretty masterminded. fermun posted:I don't see how guaranteeing ownership opportunities contradicts, elaborate please. Building new homes in low-income areas provides home ownership opportunities for low-income families. fermun posted:Who is the co-chair of DSA SF in your opinion, if you aren't using either of the two co-chairs as examples? Are you talking about @uhshanti? She's not in any of the 5 chapter steering committee positions, though is running for one in a special election as a current steering committee member is moving and our new elections won't be until June. If she wins, she will not be winning a co-chair position. Yes, I'm referring to @uhshanti. She refers to herself as "co-chair @dsa_sf housing" in her Twitter bio. If this is inaccurate, you should take it up with her.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 08:41
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:
I don't think the development is pricing you out of your 1980's apartment, more people wanting to live in the area than it has capacity is. You can give the existing housing to: - rich people by letting rents go up to market supply vs demand pricing. Everyone else gets pushed out - old residents with rent control. This excludes new people and screws anyone who wants to change apartments and can't find/doesn't want a roommate to piggy-back off of. It also encourages landlords to hate their tenants and do no maintenance to try to get people to leave. - lucky people by allocating units as below-market pricing. Good for them, doesn't help anyone else. You can reduce demand by having the local economy suck, or adding crime, or having a bunch of racism, but those are all bad. Adding capacity is the only long-term solution that doesn't screw some people over. It will 'change the character of the neighborhood', but everything does that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 08:51
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Ok, this one happens in LA a lot. A developer will take an old lot, or a strip mall, or a Burger King, and create Lofts, Luxe Apartments or Condos/Townhomes whose base rent (for like a studio 403sqft) is some ridiculous multiplier of what same rents in the area are. As long as high-end demand hasn't been satisfied and supply is constrained, developers will target that, just like if total car production was legally constrained you'd see BMW's and Lexuses more than Toyotas and Fords. It's still better than nothing if it means a net increase in housing, because otherwise whoever lived there would've been competing for housing somewhere else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 09:39
|
|
|
fermun posted:Ah yes, simultaneously criticizing someone for standing up to a caricature of YIMBYs while also creating a caricature of DSA, when the first bullet point in what changes would be needed to make DSA support an amended SB827 is to stop this from happening, which this same person acknowledges later.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 09:43
|
|
|
Cicero posted:As long as high-end demand hasn't been satisfied and supply is constrained, developers will target that, just like if total car production was legally constrained you'd see BMW's and Lexuses more than Toyotas and Fords. Then why does high-end housing sit empty? 
Cup Runneth Over fucked around with this message at 12:23 on Mar 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 09:58
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/TribTowerViews/status/976947528351473664 🤔
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 12:08
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Then why does high-end housing sit empty? Either I’m misreading the chart, or its headline doesn’t match its contents. Isn’t it showing an excess of units for low-income and moderate-income housing as well?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 13:14
|
|
|
I'm assuming the idea is "all households of that type or lower," but I couldn't really tell you for certain. Looks like it was made by http://www.hcd.ca.gov/
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 13:18
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Then why does high-end housing sit empty? That's all of Cali, I'm curious as to whether the data for specifically LA and SF area are the same, or there's a bunch of empty luxury units in Santa Barbara being counted. Also, if you are pushing for very very open zoning to happen, the first developments are going to be luxury units trying to cater to the overpriced rents and it will take some time before that gets down to the lower prices.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 03:18
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:That's all of Cali, I'm curious as to whether the data for specifically LA and SF area are the same, or there's a bunch of empty luxury units in Santa Barbara being counted. SF has ~18,000 vacant luxury units. Also, if you do very very open zoning, other areas that have done so have experienced a boom in luxury units trying to cater to the overpriced rents and then moving on to other areas once the luxury demand has been met. Capital is international, if you want to have more affordable housing investment locally, you need to either have it done by public funding or force the issue through regulations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 07:24
|
|
|
Cicero posted:This is utter bullshit. California YIMBYs if anything tend to be center-left. That they're in favor of reducing regulations in this one area doesn't mean they're "hardcore right wing libertarians", unless you think the same label applies to Paul Krugman, the Obama administration, and the California Legislative Analyst's Office. Trickle down economics doesn't work, even in housing, and it's a right-wing ideology. Libertarians are generally left of center on social issues and have a hardcore right wing belief in markets to fix things on economic issues, like YIMBYs do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 07:31
|
|
|
fermun posted:SF has ~18,000 vacant luxury units. Quite right. Why should developers, at least from their perspective, settle for lower-priced housing when there's plenty of other markets where there are not yet enough luxury units to meet the demand? Especially when development is apparently such a nightmare to get done, and such an enormous investment of money. fermun posted:Trickle down economics doesn't work, even in housing, and it's a right-wing ideology. Libertarians are generally left of center on social issues and have a hardcore right wing belief in markets to fix things on economic issues, like YIMBYs do. I don't think you really understand what trickle-down economics is. And from what I've seen of the bill it is not even close to an "invisible hand will fix it" solution. Cup Runneth Over fucked around with this message at 07:34 on Mar 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 07:32
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Quite right. Why should developers, at least from their perspective, settle for lower-priced housing when there's plenty of other markets where there are not yet enough luxury units to meet the demand? Especially when development is apparently such a nightmare to get done, and such an enormous investment of money. Cup Runneth Over posted:I don't think you really understand what trickle-down economics is. And from what I've seen of the bill it is not even close to an "invisible hand will fix it" solution. SB827 as it stands now will make housing more affordable for those who can afford luxury housing, and it will do nothing for anyone of low or moderate income, other than let the invisible hand displace them. edit: have you read the DSA statement that you've been arguing against for a day now yet? fermun fucked around with this message at 07:53 on Mar 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 07:47
|
|
|
Have you read my posts on the DSA statement? Seems like you haven't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 08:38
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Have you read my posts on the DSA statement? Seems like you haven't. This is your most recent statement regarding it: Cup Runneth Over posted:You posted the list of suggestions. I reviewed the list of suggestions. If I have to read the article to actually get the real list of suggestions, then make a new list of suggestions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 09:17
|
|
|
Ahh, nothing like some good old fashioned cherry picking to stir the "arguing in good faith" you profess to desire.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 09:30
|
|
|
Is there actually a right/libertarian wing of YIMBY in California or is this just a straw man? I had always imagined the movement full of people who would love to have good mixed income neighborhoods and smart development, but have become disenchanted by nothing being done for so long. People fight development with too many low income units. People fight development with not enough low income units. I imagine these people as saying "gently caress it! I'm tired. I'll take anything at this point."
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 17:55
|
|
|
fermun posted:SF has ~18,000 vacant luxury units. Is that vacant as in never purchased/rented, or vacant as in condos purchased by investors?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
Pinky Artichoke posted:Is that vacant as in never purchased/rented, or vacant as in condos purchased by investors? I’d guess is the latter. LA has the same issue. Condo buildings that are all sold but only like 20% filled with people actually living there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
fermun posted:SF has ~18,000 vacant luxury units. New law: Force them to reduce rates until those units are filled, or we put homeless in them like we force motels to take homeless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 20:36
|
|
|
Roll back Prop 13 on businesses and non-primary residences
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 20:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 16:25 |
|
|
The Wiggly Wizard posted:Roll back Prop 13
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 20:51
|
|