|
hostile apostle posted:I have no interest in subsidizing some olds pied a terre in San Francisco rent control applies to 60-70% of SF's rental housing...hundreds of thousands of people benefit from it. Most of SF's middle/lower class would be severely hosed if we got rid of control all of a sudden, but i guess you think only rich olds farts live in SF
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 06:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:02 |
|
|
"the problem with rent controlled housing is there isn't enough of it for everybody therefore we should get rid of all rent controlled housing" -very smart and definitely not huge morons; the entire population of the state of california
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 06:09
|
|
|
oh, and because kidney dialysis is necessary to life it is only fair in capitalism that it cost literally every single dollar you're worth and labor laws are bad and we should get rid of them all hurray for liberal california
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 06:13
|
|
|
SeANMcBAY posted:It failed loving hard. god damnit 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 06:52
|
|
|
Rejecting prop 10 and the expansion of a bad policy does not equal getting rid of all existing rent control. Of course there are consequences of removing it where it's already in place, I don't see where I or anyone has proposed just ripping the band-aid. Some of you seemed incredulous that anyone could ever NOT support Prop 10, I'm just trying to offer some alternative perspective why people overwhelmingly voted no. Trabisnikof posted:What's your opinion on prop 13? It's another horrible law because it allows people to sit on unused housing stock and leads to underfunding of schools and other local services, or higher income or consumption taxes on people who don't own property to make up for tax revenue shortfalls, essentially resulting regressive taxation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 07:01
|
|
|
Obviously, the free market solves all problems
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 07:35
|
|
|
If people really wanted to solve the housing crisis, they would create a proposition that would override local zoning laws that limit density and constrain the building of housing. gently caress the NIMBYs. Rent control reduces supply, which means that it helps the people who get it but makes the long term problem worse. What SF needs is about 400,000 more housing units, which means giant housing towers along all mass transit corridors and a huge investment in improving mass transit capacity (which would be affordable due to the massively larger property tax base from all those units. Go full loving Manhattan along the main streets, and rents would plummet. now hit me with the straw men. Call me a neo-lib fascist or something I like it predicto fucked around with this message at 08:52 on Nov 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 08:46
|
|
|
hostile apostle posted:https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/DMQ.pdf Rent control, as implemented in San Francisco, was the only way that it was legal to implement it without prop 10 passing. https://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/242/docs/Rent_Matters_PERE_Report_Final_02.pdf Even then, a literature review that was far more comprehensive that your single cited study shows rent control is good as hell. Especially when things like vacancy control are legal, which prop 10 would have legalized. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-painter-rent-control-economist-20181031-story.html You are a Wall Street bootlicker that is working to reduce the total housing stock while also incentivizing evictions and displacement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 08:46
|
|
|
predicto posted:If people really wanted to solve the housing crisis, they would create a proposition that would override local zoning laws that limit density and constrain the building of housing. gently caress the NIMBYs. Rent control reduces supply, which means that it helps the people who get it but makes the long term problem worse. Who is going to pay for that? Because developers stop investing in new housing when they get a market signal that rents are reducing. So what you need to get your units is development or subsidy by some kind of Housing and Urban Development Agency, which has had it's real dollar budget cut by 80% over the past 40 years. Otherwise, the free market will build for the high end luxury market, see rental prices begin dropping, and move on to some other city. You can mitigate some of that by inclusionary housing requirements to get them to build more than just luxury and it still pencils out, but part of the reason that single family homes are so valuable is the property value and that Costa Hawkins prevents single family homes from ever being rent controlled. Combined with prop 13, they're printing presses for the investors that own them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 08:54
|
|
|
predicto posted:If people really wanted to solve the housing crisis, they would create a proposition that would override local zoning laws that limit density and constrain the building of housing. gently caress the NIMBYs. Rent control reduces supply, which means that it helps the people who get it but makes the long term problem worse. Yeah SF needs a poo poo ton more housing. and until then, rent control needs to stay, if we want non rich people to continue to be able to live in SF (aside from public housing residents and the homeless and whatnot...the public housing waiting list was closed for like a decade by the way, and then it all started getting privatized, with entire families getting evicted due to the actions of a single person, and other new rules that would never ever be abused by management shitlers lol  )
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 09:09
|
|
|
fermun posted:Who is going to pay for that? Because developers stop investing in new housing when they get a market signal that rents are reducing. So what you need to get your units is development or subsidy by some kind of Housing and Urban Development Agency, which has had it's real dollar budget cut by 80% over the past 40 years. Otherwise, the free market will build for the high end luxury market, see rental prices begin dropping, and move on to some other city. I'm not sure it matters what you build, as long as you build a lot. Adding luxury units takes gentrification pressure off the rest of the market. And rental prices would have to fall for a long drat time before developers would not see a profit in building here, if SF wasn't allowed to put so many obstacles in the way of building pretty much anything the way it currently does. and yes, it goes without saying that Prop 13 is loving awful predicto fucked around with this message at 09:29 on Nov 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 09:21
|
|
|
Rah! posted:Yeah SF needs a poo poo ton more housing. I'm not talking about abolishing existing rent controls. That would be devastating for the people living there now who rely on the current situation. I'm talking about the idea that expanding rent control will do anything to solve the real problem here. Its a supply problem. Much more housing is the only real solution (other than a Great Depression or earthquake which drives away half the population)
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 09:26
|
|
|
In the short term, there are more people that want to live in SF than there are places to put them. Rent control/lack of rent control allocates those houses to current residents/rich people which screwing over people who want to move/poor people. Choosing to favor current residents isn't a terrible answer to a crappy situation. In the long term, housing only gets better if supply goes up or demand goes down. Making demand go down is undesirable. For making supply go up, denser housing gets built by the private sector if it's (1) long-term profitable, (2) capital is available to build, and (3) zoning allows it. In SF, (1) and (2) are true and the main obstacle is (3). Publicly owned housing would also be an option, but would be ludicrously expensive and won't happen politically. Attempts to upzone get met with community opposition from people that own and people with rent control. They reasonably don't want their neighborhoods to change and the housing crises doesn't impact them personally (rent control for the renters, prop 13 for the owners). Local officials respond to pressure from current residents, not hypothetical future residents, and keep zoning restrictions. It's also hard to demolish anything because renters can unilaterally renew their leases and rent increases are pegged to below inflation, so voluntarily moving is a horrible idea unless you're leaving the area. If I were god emperor of housing policy I would: - Extend rent control to all housing - Tie rates to units instead of occupant - Upzone everything with no community input - Raise the max rent increase to inflation+2% so increasing rents hurt everyone - Allow landlords to not renew leases if they have permits filed for demolishing and replacing with something 50% denser. If plans fall through and they re-rent the same unit, cap its new rent at previous rent - 10% But if Prop 10 had passed, what I think SF actually would have done is extend rent control to all housing at its current rates and nothing else. Which would be a short-term relief and make the long-term situation worse. The status quo at least eventually fixes things, it just unnecessarily grinds out a lot of people first.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 09:58
|
|
|
Building more luxury housing has done jack and poo poo since 2015 and private developers and their financial investors (such as banks) are just going to keep chasing after the largest profit margin even if it results in the absurdity of forcing everyone who's not a millionaire out into the suburbs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 10:14
|
|
|
it's very amusing to me that de leon made the margin respectable by running up the score in rural heavily republican districts
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 10:51
|
|
|
JesusSinfulHands posted:it's very amusing to me that de leon made the margin respectable by running up the score in rural heavily republican districts I know he's been getting a lot of poo poo in this thread but it honestly makes me wonder if not campaigning was the better strategy for this very reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 15:24
|
|
|
AngryBooch posted:I know he's been getting a lot of poo poo in this thread but it honestly makes me wonder if not campaigning was the better strategy for this very reason. he could have campaigned in places like SF, Alameda, CoCo, Man Mateo, etc counties, work with DSA chapters, really, just about anything. Of course it doesn't make sense to campaign in chudder-ville but he could have better grabbed some of that sf/marin limousine liberal vote if he tried he literally did absolutely nothing and no amount of 11th dimensional chess strategy makes that good since he still lost by a fair bit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 16:28
|
|
|
Snipee posted:There are numerous arguments criticizing the Stanford study that has gotten so much mainstream attention. I guess the main argument that convinced me is that rent control only has a small marginal impact on housing affordability for the average person not living in a rent-controlled building compared to other factors like zoning regulations, speculation in the real estate markets, and so on. However, it does have a huge positive impact on the people that it does help, so it makes sense as a stopgap measure to protect those vulnerable people while we work on properly building many more units, upzoning, restricting foreign capital flows, taxing speculators, etc. It’s also a good idea to support a policy that would reaffirm the government’s role in ensuring that everyone has access to housing. I already heard a few centrist and center left pundits point to the death of Prop 10 as yet another example of overreach by the left since a large majority of people rejected even the possibility of treating housing as a human right instead of a commodity. Yes, this is well said. Given in San Francisco and Bay Area at large there is no where near enough new housing being built due to insanely restrictive zoning, rent control has an even greater negative effect. And if rent control restrictions were lifted and applied to all units regardless of when they were constructed that just going to further disincentivize the construction of new supply that is so desperately needed. We need more supply via more construction and more density, not mechanisms that further constrict of supply.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 16:36
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:If I were god emperor of housing policy I would: If we are unrestrained by politics, why not just go Full Singapore and have the government build and rent out all of the new housing with programs to transition residents towards homeownership over the course of a decade or longer? I’m confused why a god emperor would allow private landlords to have so much influence. Anyways, as someone who has minimal interest in indulging the native population’s desires to keep their NIMBY neighbor cultures intact, I want to emphasize that unaffordable housing is one of the reasons for our widening urban-rural divide. The ridiculous cost of rent in cities where most of the national job growth has taken place helps explain why we haven’t seen more rural migration to urban areas. It is ridiculous that liberals and leftists in the economically successful coastal cities will rightfully protest against the racist idea of a border wall with Mexico while defensively maintaining their own walls of $1500 rents against any migrants where they personally live. I am sympathetic to people that want to stay in their own homes against the pressures of rising rents, but I am not sympathetic to the NIMBY types that have the same “gently caress you, I got mine” attitude that progressives would normally never tolerate from Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 16:41
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Does anyone have a good summary of the many reasons why Feinstein is a piece of poo poo? Her husband is a for-profit college lobbyist (among other shifty parasitic executive positions) who also sits on the UC board. As you might imagine she has used her position to award contracts her family has benefitted from but tied up in a nice bow to avoid any significant legal trouble. And a reminder that everyone who facilitated the Iraq War and the Patriot Act should be publicly executed
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 16:56
|
|
|
Xaris posted:but he could have better grabbed some of that sf/marin limousine liberal vote if he tried Yeah no Marin is not interested in progressive policies. They are the gluten free anti vax left.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:07
|
|
|
Snipee posted:I am not sympathetic to the NIMBY types that have the same “gently caress you, I got mine” attitude that progressives would normally never tolerate from Republicans. Progressive: Don't evict poors at the cost of not allowing anyone new to move in Liberal: Let the wealthy gentrify the cities, maybe someday that rising tide analogy will be accurate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:30
|
|
|
The Wiggly Wizard posted:Her husband is a for-profit college lobbyist (among other shifty parasitic executive positions) who also sits on the UC board. She's also 100% "gently caress you get spied on" on civil liberties, she is a warhawk who shovels more power at the military industrial complex whenever she can. Plus she flew the Confederate battle flag outside her building in the 80s. She is loving trash.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
Snipee posted:If we are unrestrained by politics, why not just go Full Singapore and have the government build and rent out all of the new housing with programs to transition residents towards homeownership over the course of a decade or longer? I’m confused why a god emperor would allow private landlords to have so much influence. My idea is to just charge a hefty vacancy tax on unoccupied rental units, and along with reassessed property taxes use that to fund the construction of high density apartments the state rents out below market rate. Sure that landlord can charge whatever he wants in rent, but he's going to be subsidizing renters one way or another and competing with state owned property that will be undercutting him. So privately owned rental property would really need to have something going for it for people to be willing to pay the difference.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:58
|
|
|
The state assembly race in my area is uh, kinda closequote:Assemblywoman Sabrina Cervantes, D-Riverside, clung to a three-vote lead Wednesday morning, Nov. 7 in the costly race for an Inland district targeted by Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 18:09
|
|
|
hostile apostle posted:Yes, this is well said. Given in San Francisco and Bay Area at large there is no where near enough new housing being built due to insanely restrictive zoning, rent control has an even greater negative effect. There are lots of places to build in the SF Bay Area but the problem is minorities live there so developers don’t think they can fill luxury units surrounded by minorities and all they want to build are luxury units. Even then, permitted units are being delayed because the profit margins are too low for investors, due to rising construction costs including wages.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 18:12
|
|
|
The Wiggly Wizard posted:Her husband is a for-profit college lobbyist (among other shifty parasitic executive positions) who also sits on the UC board. You're really underselling it. Her husband was a lobbyist for decades during which she oversaw billions in contracts going to companies he represented. The conflict of interest would crush an elephant. Sitting on college boards is just what he's doing in his semi-retirement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 18:18
|
|
|
Listen to the Feinstein episode of The Dollop. She's a demon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
She is a manifestation of the old money san francisco cliques which are absolutely loving horrible. Gavin Newsome too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:There are lots of places to build in the SF Bay Area but the problem is There are a bunch of problems, of course. You've identified one big one for sure. Others include the soaring costs of construction, the high risk to large development projects from the cumbersome and extended reviews and permitting obstacles, infrastructure incapacity, and more. Right now if you're a developer and you want to do a $20M project, you can risk a three-year permitting and zoning and review process that might completely torpedo your project somewhere in the bay area, so that you can sell luxury apartments at a 20% profit; or a one-year much more likely to succeed process somewhere else (say, Seattle metro area) with a 10% projected profit. The latter is often the more attractive option to an investor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
It's really hard to overstate just how much of a backer Feinstein is of the military-industrial complex and (especially) the surveillance state. I don't mind her as much as some posters here do, and she was a massive upgrade from the person she replaced (Pete Wilson), but she represents the cutting edge of what was possible for a Democrat in California back in 1992. It's 26 years later and the state is much, much bluer now, and it should be represented by a much more progressive Senator, not someone who'd fit in seamlessly with a class of business-friendly 1990s Southern New Democratic senators.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 18:40
|
|
|
Feinstein is 85 years old and lich jokes aside is not long for political office, let alone this world. De Leon at least raised his profile enough with his campaign that I'd hope he could easily coast into the seat once she finally steps aside.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 18:51
|
|
|
Six years is an eternity in politics and deLeon cannot afford to sit around hoping she doesn't run next re-election. Look for him to seek a different office, sooner.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 19:00
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Feinstein is 85 years old and lich jokes aside is not long for political office, let alone this world. De Leon at least raised his profile enough with his campaign that I'd hope he could easily coast into the seat once she finally steps aside. Well I for one will not be voting for him again. I want someone that actually puts effort into things, not someone that coasts in. Hopefully there's a decent alternative and we get another D vs. D general election and the challenger works for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Six years is an eternity in politics and deLeon cannot afford to sit around hoping she doesn't run next re-election. Look for him to seek a different office, sooner. I'm hoping she keels over and we have a special election before 2024.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
Sydin posted:I'm hoping she keels over and we have a
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 19:15
|
|
|
Family Values posted:You're really underselling it. Her husband was a lobbyist for decades during which she oversaw billions in contracts going to companies he represented. The conflict of interest would crush an elephant. I take the UC thing personally is all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 19:19
|
|
|
Sydin posted:I'm hoping she keels over and we have a special election before 2024. We can all hope, but deLeon would be a fool to pin his political career on it. He'll run for something else within 2 years, or he'll find something else to do than politics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
Sydin posted:De Leon at least raised his profile enough with his campaign that I'd hope he could easily coast into the seat once she finally steps aside. //by that, I mean someone that places those issues front and center and speaks about them. De Leon's campaign website hits all the right platform notes, but where the gently caress was he in leading a dialogue? FilthyImp fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Nov 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:02 |
|
|
Leperflesh posted:We can all hope, but deLeon would be a fool to pin his political career on it. He'll run for something else within 2 years, or he'll find something else to do than politics. At this point I'm convinced this was his goal from the beginning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 20:48
|
|
