|
Trabisnikof posted:More housing isn't always better if that housing is going to sit on unmediated land contaminated with hazardous waste. Once again my dirigible housing plan neatly solves all problems while creating none.
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 01:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 13:36 |
|
|
What if we build a ton of poo poo and keep it rent controlled until we don't need to anymore?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 01:22
|
|
|
I mean if you're talking about public housing that's kind of de facto rent controlled isn't it? Like, the government sets the policy there and how much rent people pay, and it's heavily subsidized for the poor?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 01:27
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I mean if you're talking about public housing that's kind of de facto rent controlled isn't it? Like, the government sets the policy there and how much rent people pay, and it's heavily subsidized for the poor? Government housing and also private housing and rent control all of it until we have vast seas of 9 story residential towers like Tokyo that are affordable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 01:37
|
|
|
The state should build housing, pay to maintain that housing, and offer it to low income earners at far below rent-burdened rate. They should also build it in nice areas right next to luxury apartments filled with rich people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 01:42
|
|
|
Just got my sample ballot and neither the GOP challenger to my House rep nor my incumbent GOP Assemblyperson submitted a statement. Interesting strategy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 02:33
|
|
|
Admiral Ray posted:Once again my dirigible housing plan neatly solves all problems while creating none. Honestly this is the logical evolution of tech buses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 02:57
|
|
|
Sydin posted:They should also build it in nice areas right next to luxury apartments filled with rich people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 03:50
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:oh i thought you were still talking about the necessary new construction that you had just mentioned in the previous post So add a vacancy tax too. That would help with both the international super-rich using real estate a safe wealth hideaway (this really just applies to luxury units, but there are indirect effects on non-luxury housing stock by halting this practice) and the problem that you illustrated above. poo poo, getting landlords into competition for tenants would completely change the game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 03:53
|
|
|
predicto posted:that's a separate gently caress-up San Francisco would be hosed even harder by traffic if this were true. there's plenty of suburban territory around SF that is easier to develop and plan on but consistently refuses to build densely. SF liberals just always catch the most poo poo because there's more visible hypocrisy
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 05:10
|
|
|
LinYutang posted:San Francisco would be hosed even harder by traffic if this were true. While we're learning from other countries and building more densely, we can also learn from them about not insisting on driving everywhere all the time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 05:18
|
|
|
Are you all forgetting that SF helped defund all efforts to make 101 a 2 lane for the longest time to stop people from leaving sf?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 06:36
|
|
|
If we’re fantasizing about allowing high density housing we might as well fantasize about sane transport infrastructure, too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 06:45
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:If we’re fantasizing about allowing high density housing we might as well fantasize about sane transport infrastructure, too. Hey, what if we put a tax on gasoline and use it to..... [/fullcircle]
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 07:02
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:Are you all forgetting that SF helped defund all efforts to make 101 a 2 lane for the longest time to stop people from leaving sf? Wait, what?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 07:09
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Government housing and also private housing and rent control all of it until we have vast seas of 9 story residential towers like Tokyo that are affordable. No developer is going to build a bunch of housing if it’s all immediately forced below the market rate by rent control. This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t build a bunch of public housing or that rent control is bad, just that “new private housing and rent control all of it” specifically is not a thing that can happen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 14:11
|
|
|
CopperHound posted:I can't tell if you mean this in a punitive way, but it is actually good policy. Even better if it is the same complex. I just have no idea what the ideal ratio is though. Not punitive at all, when you build a bunch of public housing in a lovely area where economic demographics already skew heavily towards the poor, you get the Chicago Projects. Not to mention that stereotypes of other socioeconomic situations beyond your own are much harder to justify when you actually live around and have to interact with them on a daily basis. You always have to deal with the specter of another round of white flight obviously, but the country as a whole could really do with more mixed demographics living in close proximity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 17:55
|
|
|
quote:Wicked Them Beats posted:I'm super happy about the proposition name. The title alone is going to get a lot of no votes.  that super loving owns. i wonder who came up with the name and does that because nice power play.if it was just "REPEAL EVIL GAS TAX" it would pass in a heartbeat. actually has a chance at failing now tho which is lmao
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
I really hope Prop 10 passes as well. Costa Hawkins loving sucks. Unfortunately I dont think its odds are good
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
Rent control and massive building/densification would be fine, I just don't see how you can get them together. Take San Francisco for example The western half of the city is all 1 story single family home over garages (pic is a random spot in street view) like these  To improve housing supply, things like this need to be replaced by apartments. Currently those areas are zoned for single unit per lot, not to exceed 40'  All of the light yellow is one unit per lot. Map When people try to get zoning changed, there's lots of opposition from the people who live there already because they don't want the places they live to change and they're insulated from the housing market as long as they don't move, so they aren't forced to care.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 01:46
|
|
|
Fill the Bay below the San Mateo Bridge 2024!
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 01:52
|
|
|
Do it under the Dumbarton bridge, it's shallower. Get Facebook to pay for it!
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 01:53
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:To improve housing supply, things like this need to be replaced by apartments. The fundamental poison laced into the reasonable need is the supposition that people should rent from a landlord class forever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 01:59
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:The fundamental poison laced into the reasonable need is the supposition that people should rent from a landlord class forever. Ok, affordably priced condos
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 02:05
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:Rent control and massive building/densification would be fine, I just don't see how you can get them together. Its “easy”. Just pass state law that bans munis and counties from passing height limits, occupancy maximum on dwellings, parking requirements, shadows, and eir exemptions for big housing
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 02:18
|
|
|
Xaris posted:Its “easy”. Giving EIR exemptions to big housing plans will end up with more housing on dangerously polluted land like Hunters Point and not less.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 02:33
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:Rent control and massive building/densification would be fine, I just don't see how you can get them together. I can't read the key because it's too small, but how much of the single unit yellow is there, and how much is the barely detectable difference to yellow-orange? I don't doubt you but I drive through those Western hoods a few times a week and they feel a lot denser than one unit per each of those squares. Like the pic you linked has a few buildings that I would have figured were 4 apartments. I'm not saying I doubt it but 1 yellow square = 1 single family structure feels super low to me even for those outer neighbohoods.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 02:55
|
|
|
The map link goes to the full size pdf. The yellow tones range from 1-3 units per lot It's not one unit per numbered rectangle on the map, it's one unit per lot (unit of land that can be bought or sold) for the lots in that rectangle. Each rectangles is a block that is zoned as a unit. Everything in that picture up to the next crossstreet is one rectangle on the zoning map.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 03:11
|
|
|
Oh I see ok, I was thinking of the word unit in the wrong way AND i missed the link to fullsize... really interesting to see it up close. I wish the people there were more open to higher density structures going in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 03:15
|
|
|
just to be clear: most of those squares are entire city blocks, not individual properties. And zoning often means "what can be built" not "what is already there", which will include lots of grandfathered properties. And, a significant number of those houses out in the richmond and sunset have illegal inlaws, so are effectively 2 units, even though they're officially 1. e. posted too slow, I think you got it
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 03:22
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Giving EIR exemptions to big housing plans will end up with more housing on dangerously polluted land like Hunters Point and not less. eirs don't address the environment's damage to the project (i.e. existing contamination making occupants-of-new-building sick, but would care if the building introduced new contamination) .it's rather the project's impact to the "environment" which encompasses everything from evaluating damage to endangered plants/species (good) to how more people living there would make traffic so much worse that would make their neighborhood polluted therefore.../neighbors views / wind / shadows (bad) san francisco already requires soil and groundwater sampling for all work unless specifically exempted (article 22a)) and those are pretty simple. every project ive worked on has had some form of environmental site classification and phase 1 environmental site assessments as no one wants to have contractor bring change orders for finding it out during construction, private nor public.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 04:12
|
|
|
Don't really see much of a problem with SF's height limit law. Paris is one of the densest cities in the world and isn't made up of skyscraper housing units.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 04:39
|
|
|
Don't need skyscrapers, just 5-6 story buildings replacing 1-2 story ones. Paris's height limit was 120ft in the 70's, recently raised to 590ft. SF is mostly 40ft
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 05:00
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:Don't need skyscrapers, just 5-6 story buildings replacing 1-2 story ones. yeah paris is way denser than SF, but you're not making the best comparison there. I found what i assume is the same source you did for paris height limits, and that 590' height limit is just for the 13th arrondissement (and 590' is just for office buildings, it's 150' for residential), not the entire city. Just like SF has certain areas that are denser, and that 40' height limit you mentioned doesn't cover the entire city (though yeah, it does cover too much). The north eastern quarter of SF is packed full of midrises and highrises lol...of course if it weren't for decades of NIMBYism there would be a ton more of them all over the city, and housing would be cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 07:01
|
|
|
LinYutang posted:Don't really see much of a problem with SF's height limit law. Paris is one of the densest cities in the world and isn't made up of skyscraper housing units. The best use for skyscrapers as far as housing goes is to allow them near major transit stops, like light rail/subway stations. That poo poo is expensive, so you want as many people within a walkable distance as possible to make good use of the investment. Cicero fucked around with this message at 09:03 on Sep 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 09:01
|
|
|
Xaris posted:Its “easy”. No, just set a tax of 85% on all non-owner-occupied properties and watch things adjust.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 10:31
|
|
|
I have been reading more on Prop 10 this afternoon, and my understanding is that everyone seems to agree that there are both significant disadvantages and advantages to rent controls spread out among different segments of the population. Rather or not people think that the trade off is worthwhile is much more debatable, and I find it worrying that the defenders of rent control are oftentimes left in the position of arguing “well yeah, this isn’t great policy on its own, but if paired with x, y, and z...”. I am specifically talking about the 2017 Stanford study and the responses from tenant advocates. Why can’t we just have an upzoning and public construction of affordable housing proposition instead? I want to help the poor, but I have 0 interest in encouraging nimbyism or simply picking winners within the rental market (it will disproportionately benefit older residents since younger renters are much more mobile) if we enable rent control ordinances without adequately planning for the adverse consequences that inevitably follow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 01:03
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:No, just set a tax of 85% on all non-owner-occupied properties and watch things adjust. Wouldn't this just encourage a small number of companies to buy up all the rental housing stock since they'd be wealthy enough to eat the cost? How does it benefit renters if landlords are going to pass the expense off on tenants either way?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 01:09
|
|
|
Snipee posted:I have been reading more on Prop 10 this afternoon, and my understanding is that everyone seems to agree that there are both significant disadvantages and advantages to rent controls spread out among different segments of the population. Rather or not people think that the trade off is worthwhile is much more debatable, and I find it worrying that the defenders of rent control are oftentimes left in the position of arguing “well yeah, this isn’t great policy on its own, but if paired with x, y, and z...”. I am specifically talking about the 2017 Stanford study and the responses from tenant advocates. This accepts the framing that economics is rational and we just need to find the right policy to make everyone happy. poo poo’s bad and getting worse, at least with rent control there’s something to fight back with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 01:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 13:36 |
|
|
Governor Brown signed SB 822 into law today. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-net-neutrality-california-signed-governor-jerry-brown-20180930-story.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 01:38
|
|
