|
I 100% agree that the solution is publicly funded and owned housing. There also needs to be some isolation for people from the market as we get there. There's been a total disinvestment from the national, state, and local level in public housing, and that needs to be reversed, but rent control is a tool that helps keep people from becoming homeless as we restore public housing. The housing crisis is absolutely massive and can only be solved through a government investment of an amount that would be spent on public infrastructure, and it needs to also be done without displacing huge percentages of existing lower income residents from near transit. The only way you build massively near public transit hubs without displacing all lower-income people that currently live near transit is some form of rent control.
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 07:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:35 |
|
|
Oneiros posted:So you further neuter any lingering incentives for people to build more housing or rent out property by removing all possibility of them being profitable or even meeting costs as inflation creeps over time. This will result in more affordable housing by _____________. San Francisco has always exempted rent control on units for the first 20 years after construction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 07:16
|
|
|
Oneiros posted:Hint: The solution is publicly funded and owned housing, not continuing decades of futile attempts to hammer a horrifically broken mess of public policy and market incentives into a functioning housing market. Amen. Even with big incentives and inclusionary zoning it seems unlikely that the market is ever going to build enough low income and supportive housing units to put a dent in this crisis.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 07:28
|
|
|
20 years is long enough that building a new building is reasonably likely to earn your investment back. The problem is that rent control creates a large class of people who don't have any reason to care about rental prices anymore, but do want their neighborhoods to stay the same. So they're incentivized to block development. I'm not sure I believe that Prop 13 people generally want housing prices to go up. Yes, it makes their paper net worth go up (which some people care about), but they don't actually get that unless they move. I think they mostly care about keeping everything around them the same (i.e. no transit here (it'll bring the poors), no highrises (it'll block my view), no denser housing (traffic), ...). Ultimately you have more people that want to live somewhere than housing available, so someone loses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 07:35
|
|
|
fermun posted:San Francisco has always exempted rent control on units for the first 20 years after construction. I'm living in a house that was built in 1929. Twenty years is nothing when it comes to residential construction. The twenty year exemption means that (pulling numbers out of my poo poo memory it's late and I'm not doing a whole lot of research here) a whole whopping 10% of the SF market is exempt after lifting the restrictions Costa Hawkins imposes. Keep in mind that's just the adverse market incentives from rent control, not all the other bullshit the city throws in the way of new development. fermun posted:There also needs to be some isolation for people from the market as we get there. There is no isolation from the market when there is no functioning alternative to the market in play. Seriously, I'm with you 100% on our shared dream here but continuing to gently caress with the (extremely unjust and problematic) system we've got has not and will not work. This is not a place where creeping incremental improvements and half-assed market interventions work. Foxfire_ posted:20 years is long enough that building a new building is reasonably likely to earn your investment back. Buildings are massive investments and generally speaking the increase in values (outside of totally broken markets like California) are just enough to offset inflation and maintenance costs. No private individual or organization is going to go thru the massive headaches and problems of renting out their property for "break even". Oneiros fucked around with this message at 07:46 on Sep 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 07:39
|
|
|
I don't see any propositions to decommodify housing on the ballot, all I see are more measure to gently caress up the market even more than it already is. I don't see any propositions to improve public transit on the ballot, all I see are regressive taxes that tie revenues to problematic behavior that we want to reduce.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 08:00
|
|
|
The taxes go towards improving public transit you dense motherfucker. We're already in the process of improving it with that money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 08:00
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:The taxes go towards improving public transit you dense motherfucker. We're already in the process of improving it with that money. I'm not complaining about being taxed you dense motherfucker, I'm complaining that the taxes are regressive as gently caress and you can take your false dichotomies, roll them up, and shove them up your rear end in a top hat. Oneiros fucked around with this message at 08:06 on Sep 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 08:04
|
|
|
"I don't see any propositions to improve public transit on the ballot! It's just regressive taxes! Might as well just take all that money away from our public transit initiatives." Your disingenuous enemy-of-the-good politics don't impress me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 08:16
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:The problem is that rent control creates a large class of people who don't have any reason to care about rental prices anymore, but do want their neighborhoods to stay the same. So they're incentivized to block development. If we're just randomly talking theoretical here, I could just as easily turn this around on your argument of being in favor of making sure single family homes are always exempt from rent control regardless of build date (which matters for Prop 13). Why not allow those homes to be disincentived in the market? Disincentivize single family homes from the rental market and you get more people building multi-family in those areas because it's better from a market perspective. That's banned by Costa-Hawkins. Oneiros posted:I'm living in a house that was built in 1929. Twenty years is nothing when it comes to residential construction. The twenty year exemption means that (pulling numbers out of my poo poo memory it's late and I'm not doing a whole lot of research here) a whole whopping 10% of the SF market is exempt after lifting the restrictions Costa Hawkins imposes. Oneiros posted:Buildings are massive investments and generally speaking the increase in values (outside of totally broken markets like California) are just enough to offset inflation and maintenance costs. No private individual or organization is going to go thru the massive headaches and problems of renting out their property for "break even". Oneiros posted:There is no isolation from the market when there is no functioning alternative to the market in play. Seriously, I'm with you 100% on our shared dream here but continuing to gently caress with the (extremely unjust and problematic) system we've got has not and will not work. This is not a place where creeping incremental improvements and half-assed market interventions work. Rent control 100% helps prevent existing residents with no other options from becoming homeless and does provide some isolation from the market for them. We need more and it's a lovely band-aid as it currently exists, but literally nothing can change in what rent control is unless we vote yes on prop 10. Oneiros posted:I don't see any propositions to decommodify housing on the ballot, all I see are more measure to gently caress up the market even more than it already is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 08:22
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:"I don't see any propositions to improve public transit on the ballot! It's just regressive taxes! Might as well just take all that money away from our public transit initiatives." You're right, I should always settle for loving over those who least deserve it. There is no other way. Better things are not possible. Again, you can take your false dichotomies, roll them up, and shove them up your rear end in a top hat. (I'm voting no on 7 and yes on 10 by the way, because I have to hope that they're stepping stones to something better instead of excuses to do nothing better, but don't expect me to be loving happy about it) fermun posted:I believe that you're just talking state, right? You're in SF, please tell me you're yes on Prop C. The business tax to fund homeless services? gently caress yes. I don't agree 100% on how the money is spent but there is nowhere near enough dedicated to it. Watching the police and city workers hassle the homeless off Division ST this year (they're starting to drift back now, despite the new shelter on Valencia and Division) was one of the most rage-inducing things I've witnessed. Oneiros fucked around with this message at 08:44 on Sep 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 08:29
|
|
|
Oneiros posted:You're right, I should always settle for loving over those who least deserve it. There is no other way. Better things are not possible. Certainly not through deliberately misrepresenting the options available to you. Does a tax on gas (which, by the way, increases gas prices by less than their natural price inflation) disproportionately harm lower income earners who rely on cars to get to their jobs? Yes. Will that tax revenue that goes towards rebuilding and expanding public transit disproportionately benefit lower income earners who will use that transit and become less reliant on cars, and be incentivized to do so by taxes on gas? Also yes. The gas tax is improving public transit. Maybe it's not the way you'd like public transit to be improved. But it's here and it's real and it's working, unlike the other ways, so stop acting like it's Sticking It To The Poors. Cup Runneth Over fucked around with this message at 08:45 on Sep 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 08:42
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Certainly not through deliberately misrepresenting the options available to you. Does a tax on gas (which, by the way, increases gas prices by less than their natural price inflation) disproportionately harm lower income earners who rely on cars to get to their jobs? Yes. Will that tax revenue that goes towards rebuilding and expanding public transit disproportionately benefit lower income earners who will use that transit and become less reliant on cars, and be incentivized to do so by taxes on gas? Also yes. I'm not deliberately misrepresenting poo poo. The poor are the least able to absorb any sort of increased expenses. Just because things will be better in the future we pinky promise doesn't mean we aren't "Sticking It To The Poors" right now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 08:50
|
|
|
Oneiros posted:The business tax to fund homeless services? gently caress yes. I don't agree 100% on how the money is spent but there is nowhere near enough dedicated to it. It mandates how it's portion should be spent, but the city portion is still adjustable by the supes, so, ehhhh. Oneiros posted:The business tax to fund homeless services? gently caress yes. I don't agree 100% on how the money is spent but there is nowhere near enough dedicated to it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 08:50
|
|
|
Gas is so expensive that if you make less than 50k a year it's considered a luxury expense, and if you make between 50k and 100k a year it's going to hit you even harder until you make a 100k and you can absorb the cost no problem, statistically, in California.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 08:53
|
|
|
fermun posted:It mandates how it's portion should be spent, but the city portion is still adjustable by the supes, so, ehhhh. I had to  from so many coworkers who voted yes on prop Q. Like, otherwise decent, likeable folk who just couldn't resist loving over the homeless some more because it made their walk to the food truck park icky.Also I really need my paper voter guide so I can have a physical reference and write all this poo poo down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 08:54
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:Gas is so expensive that if you make less than 50k a year it's considered a luxury expense, and if you make between 50k and 100k a year it's going to hit you even harder until you make a 100k and you can absorb the cost no problem, statistically, in California. The true cost of gas production and consumption is being burdened unsustainably by the environment. If you’re worried about using your vote progressively, just remember that environmental justice is social justice. That’s my justification anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 15:47
|
|
|
fermun posted:I 100% agree that the solution is publicly funded and owned housing. There also needs to be some isolation for people from the market as we get there. There's been a total disinvestment from the national, state, and local level in public housing, and that needs to be reversed, but rent control is a tool that helps keep people from becoming homeless as we restore public housing. The housing crisis is absolutely massive and can only be solved through a government investment of an amount that would be spent on public infrastructure, and it needs to also be done without displacing huge percentages of existing lower income residents from near transit. The only way you build massively near public transit hubs without displacing all lower-income people that currently live near transit is some form of rent control. Speaking of "social housing," isn't there an initiative in California to establish a state bank? What's the status of that? I bring that up because I'm pretty sure it was intended to be step 1 in establishing a finance arm for the construction of socially (read: publicly owned but operated like normal-ish rental units, unlike typical public housing) owned rental housing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 16:19
|
|
|
I always want more info on that state bank idea, so if anybody has anything, I'm interested too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
unbutthurtable posted:Speaking of "social housing," isn't there an initiative in California to establish a state bank? What's the status of that? There’s an LA bank proposition too, not sure if those guys are working together
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 16:24
|
|
|
I wonder if profits are now high enough for those stalled Bay Area projects to get built, I think the developers were waiting for labor costs to drop to allow for the 10% profit margin they demand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 16:29
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:There’s an LA bank proposition too, not sure if those guys are working together https://publicbankla.com/ is the link to the Los Angeles one, which looks pretty cool but the main site doesn't talk about social housing, at least The Bank of North Dakota is the only publicly owned bank in the US and it's kind of a cool case study even if this wikipedia article is pretty sparse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_North_Dakota I'd definitely be interested in reading more about the California/LA proposals. Has Matt Breunig said anything about it recently?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 16:38
|
|
|
last time i was in sacramento i had this insane russian lyft driver who said "all you people from LA and the bay are why rent here is rising. but no you cant do rent control because hurf durf free market, and also the solution is public housing" like, which is it, guy 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 16:41
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:last time i was in sacramento i had this insane russian lyft driver who said "all you people from LA and the bay are why rent here is rising. but no you cant do rent control because hurf durf free market, and also the solution is public housing" People hate change and don’t understand basic economics. Film at 11.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
unbutthurtable posted:Speaking of "social housing," isn't there an initiative in California to establish a state bank? What's the status of that? I think most of the efforts are going into municipal banks (see LA, SF, Oakland, etc) with the state-level stuff mostly about creating a model charter and advocacy. A lot of the noise being made about them seems to be focused on a) divorcing the municipal governments from the lovely national banks e.g. Wells Fargo and b) supporting the cannabis industry. If there are any big efforts to set up financing for public/social housing I'd love to hear about them!
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 20:30
|
|
|
Rent control won't 100% fix this problem better go with massively rising rents with no controls
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 21:34
|
|
|
Oneiros posted:Hint: The solution is publicly funded and owned housing, not continuing decades of futile attempts to hammer a horrifically broken mess of public policy and market incentives into a functioning housing market. This is part of the solution, but building more privately-funded housing is good too. More housing, however you can get it, as fast as you can get it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 21:42
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Rent control won't 100% fix this problem better go with massively rising rents with no controls It’s what the market demands.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
Are you hoping that an excess of housing will result in price drops? Has that ever been shown to actually be the result of excess housing instead of having units just sit vacant?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 23:15
|
|
|
oh yeah? name one time that supply-side trickle-down policies have failed to work
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
12 rats tied together posted:Are you hoping that an excess of housing will result in price drops? Has that ever been shown to actually be the result of excess housing instead of having units just sit vacant? Some may sit vacant for a short time, but the filthy greed-head landlords that own them won't hold out for long. The rents in the most expensive neighborhoods and towns will stay high, but the gentrification pressure and rents in the rest of the city and metropolitan area absolutely will be reduced.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
12 rats tied together posted:Has that ever been shown to actually be the result of excess housing instead of having units just sit vacant?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
predicto posted:Some may sit vacant for a short time, but the filthy greed-head landlords that own them won't hold out for long. The rents in the most expensive neighborhoods and towns will stay high, but the gentrification pressure and rents in the rest of the city and metropolitan area absolutely will be reduced. this assumes that the buyers are interested at all in renting out the unit to generate cash instead of just holding on to it as a purely speculative asset (or a dormant store of value)
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 23:45
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:this assumes that the buyers are interested at all in renting out the unit to generate cash instead of just holding on to it as a purely speculative asset (or a dormant store of value) We are talking about already built units of housing, with the cost of building already baked in. Why would anyone (in the long term) not rent them out and get the return on the investment. The unit retains its value as a speculative asset or dormant store of value if it is rented. Landlords are greedy - they want both.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 23:50
|
|
|
oh i thought you were still talking about the necessary new construction that you had just mentioned in the previous post all other things being equal a unit with a tenant is less liquid which makes it fetch a lower price if youre selling it right now Shear Modulus fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Sep 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 23:55
|
|
|
fermun posted:Rent control 100% helps prevent existing residents with no other options from becoming homeless a lot of people seem to forget about this SF's existing middle and lower class would be real hosed without it, for example. Hundreds of thousands of people rely on it to continue living there
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 00:02
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:oh i thought you were still talking about the necessary new construction that you had just mentioned in the previous post no, I'm talking about the long term effect of just building a poo poo ton of housing. Public, private, in-law units, whatever. More units of housing is always better, regardless of whether it is luxury housing, public housing, subdivided housing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
12 rats tied together posted:Are you hoping that an excess of housing will result in price drops? Has that ever been shown to actually be the result of excess housing instead of having units just sit vacant?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
predicto posted:no, I'm talking about the long term effect of just building a poo poo ton of housing. Public, private, in-law units, whatever. More units of housing is always better, regardless of whether it is luxury housing, public housing, subdivided housing. More housing isn't always better if that housing is going to sit on unmediated land contaminated with hazardous waste.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:35 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:More housing isn't always better if that housing is going to sit on unmediated land contaminated with hazardous waste. that's a separate gently caress-up San Francisco still would be served far better with massive skyscrapers of housing down every block of Market Street, Van Ness Street, Mission Street, Geary Street, etc. And it really doesn't matter what kind of housing it is any where near as much as it matters that there is a poo poo ton more of it than there is now. The current approach of spending 5 million bucks of public money at City Hall to get 12 more units of subsidized housing built doesn't work, and it hasn't worked for the past 30 years that we have been trying it, while the underlying problem gets worse and worse. predicto fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Sep 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 00:56
|
|