|
Spazzle posted:It looks like a laundry list of masturbatory demands, aims to make only 500 units a year , and addresses nothing about why housing is impossible to build. We have dipshits who fight tooth and nail to prevent anything from getting built, why is there the assumption that they will suddenly stand down because we're building affordable housing? You're being too short sighted. Look here - this family being evicted because their landlord wants to put in granite counter tops and raise the rent by two grand a month. They do so joyfully because they know only one bougie family will take their place instead of the half dozen or more that would be there if their single family lot were rezoned to allow an apartment. And here - this abandoned auto parts store behind which they've pitched the tent they now live in. The fact that it is zoned single use commercial and can't be redeveloped to house tech-bros keeps them warm at night. And this man pan-handling in the intersection trying to get enough cash to buy heroin because the last addiction treatment center in the area was driven out by our allies the NIMBYs in order to preserve the character of the neighborhood. He's doing his part by scaring away the soccer moms and lowing the property values. People like you are constantly griping about "homeless people" and their "suffering." But when you realize that they're just fellow comrades doing their part to stick it to the man, it becomes much easier to ignore them and concentrate to important things like getting density rates lowered and preventing that drive through Starbucks on my way into work being turned into apartments.
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 17:22 |
|
|
You guys sure like talking past each other to prove you're more woke
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 18:33
|
|
|
I saw the "Protect Prop 13" table at Target and there was people stacked 2 deep signing the petition. Bleeeeergh
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 18:43
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:You guys sure like talking past each other to prove you're more woke Basically yes. The motivation to every California housing debate is NIMBYs and YIMBYs calling each other naive tools of capital. Housing is beside the point. The real solution will probably end up being something like development coupled with rent control, vacancy taxes, and land banks but I don't think we're going to get progressives all lined up that way any time soon. Especially since everyone is so locked into that painfully CA Democratic Party style incremental improvement model of progress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 18:43
|
|
|
nrook posted:This is pretty clearly great news for the country! The more people are forced out of California by rising housing prices, the better Democrats will do in Senate and presidential elections in other states. Thanks to the people of California for making this sacrifice on behalf of our nation. inshallah
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 18:48
|
|
|
Weembles posted:The motivation to every California housing debate is NIMBYs and YIMBYs calling each other naive tools of capital. Housing is beside the point. NIMBYs are basically universally capitalists. The real divide is between people who want affordable housing and people who want public housing. Calling either side NIMBYs is just using it as a pejorative in total defiance of its actual meaning.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 18:54
|
|
|
Watching someone desperately try to yell at single-family housing defenders in a thread full of leftists who want to bulldoze them and build high rises is certainly something. Literally all the people who oppose SB50 do so because we don't think it goes nearly far enough and will probably prevent a better bill from being passed but these are some hot sarcastic takes that need to be laid out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 18:55
|
|
|
any sort of housing policy you might want is going to necessarily have to include overriding local single-family detached housing zoning restrictions
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 19:12
|
|
|
yes but doing only that isnt going to prevent housing prices and rents from skyrocketing ever upward
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 19:17
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Watching someone desperately try to yell at single-family housing defenders in a thread full of leftists who want to bulldoze them and build high rises is certainly something. I mean, you're right. There are only one or two NIMBYs in the thread, and you can tell because they actually do talk like NIMBYs, complaining about tiny apartments and increased traffic. But opposing SB50 because it doesn't go far enough is just accelerationism. It's a way to sacrifice benefits that could be made today for the sake of imagined benefits tomorrow. Compromise is ugly and aesthetically unappealing, so it's always going to be unpopular among people who follow state and national politics (that is, with hobbyists), but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Would a state-level public housing initiative help alleviate the housing crisis? Well, yeah. So I'll support that when it comes up too. e: I think a lot of the opposition to SB50 among leftists also comes down to Wiener personally, who IIRC has a history of supporting cruel policies against the homeless when he was a municipal politician. nrook fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Jan 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 19:17
|
|
|
Because we allowed companies to pollute and not remediate there is ample land near public transit that needs to be remediated and can be developed without displacing existing homes. But as long as the discussion is developer-centric those projects are impossible because the neighborhoods are too poor and minority and the projects too expensive since community accrues value from removing polluted lands. So instead we must focus on the communities that are already heavily invested in and have less need, since that makes the project far more appealing for developers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 19:33
|
|
|
nrook posted:I mean, you're right. There are only one or two NIMBYs in the thread, and you can tell because they actually do talk like NIMBYs, complaining about tiny apartments and increased traffic. But opposing SB50 because it doesn't go far enough is just accelerationism. It's a way to sacrifice benefits that could be made today for the sake of imagined benefits tomorrow. Compromise is ugly and aesthetically unappealing, so it's always going to be unpopular among people who follow state and national politics (that is, with hobbyists), but that doesn't mean it's wrong. The opposition to SB50 is, over and over, that it's designed to please people who largely will not be getting displaced when it doesn't do much and you are unable to afford your apartment. What does SB50 do to actually get developers to build? H.P. Hovercraft posted:any sort of housing policy you might want is going to necessarily have to include overriding local single-family detached housing zoning restrictions Yes fine, and make sure you start in the rich neighborhoods please. SB50 is not going to get this going in earnest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 19:34
|
|
|
Weembles posted:Basically yes. I'm a fan of Moms4Housing style occupations to force the issue, but unfortunately they'd rather send in the literal goddamn takes than let the conversation escape the bounds of the painful CA Democratic Party style incremental improvement model of progress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 19:43
|
|
|
[url] https://twitter.com/aceckhouse/status/1222749067635130368?s=21[/url] So glad we have so many brave revolutionary comrades in the legislature fighting capitalism ✊.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 20:07
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:What does SB50 do to actually get developers to build? Ah, I'm happy to explain. SB50 makes it easier to build new multifamily homes by expanding access to the streamlined approval process introduced by SB 35. It's expensive when development projects are delayed, so access to a faster approval process makes more prospective projects profitable. Since developers are in business to make money, this will lead them to pursue more projects. It also allows developers to ignore density controls and follow lower-than-average parking requirements if they are building in a jobs-rich or transit-rich area. (Jobs-rich means just what it sounds like; the area must have a lot of jobs available, as determined by the Department of Housing and Community Development. Transit-rich means it's within 0.5 miles of a major transit stop, or a 0.25 miles away from a 10-minute-or-more-frequent bus route.) If an apartment building has more apartments, its owner can rent or sell them to more people, allowing them to make more money. Of course, bigger apartment buildings are also more expensive to build, but in many areas the sweet spot will be above the maximum density allowed by local zoning rules. As such, again, more projects will be profitable, making developers more inclined to pursue them. There is a condition in the law that this expedited approval doesn't apply if the owner of an existing building has kicked tenants out recently. However, I think it only applies to tenants who have been kicked out in a specific way, and I'm not sure exactly when it applies. The full text of the bill is available online, if you want more details. I'm not a lawyer or an expert in this area, so I may have made some mistakes; if so, I'd be happy to be corrected.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 20:13
|
|
|
nrook posted:Ah, I'm happy to explain. SB50 makes it easier to build new multifamily homes by expanding access to the streamlined approval process introduced by SB 35. It's expensive when development projects are delayed, so access to a faster approval process makes more prospective projects profitable. Since developers are in business to make money, this will lead them to pursue more projects. Thank you for your thoughts. I'm aware of what SB50 claims to do. LA is full of structures getting built by passing normal approval processes and rent is so high in LA that making money is virtually guaranteed. Downtown is a crane showroom, K-town has about 30 active projects and there are all sorts of developments going up along the various light rail tracks under JJJ. The issue is they're not building enough, or fast enough, and most of what's getting built is driving up rents and displacing the people who are already struggling. That's why the groups that actually work with gettting affordable housing along transit don't support the bill. https://medium.com/@ACTLA/the-road-to-getting-sb-50-right-and-why-we-are-currently-opposing-the-bill-ee2680f4b2b2 More detailed letter they sent last year: http://allianceforcommunitytransit.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/SB-50-Significant-Concerns.pdf Signatories: http://allianceforcommunitytransit.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/SB-50-Concerned-Organizations.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 20:33
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:
Lmao no, this is farcically untrue. The vast majority of opposition the things like SB50 come from wealthy homeowners who don’t want their property value diminished. Left NIMBYs are at most useful idiots for them. If you mean in the sense of this thread, someone told me to go live in Hong Kong when I suggested that sprawling suburban homes near transit were a bad idea. FRINGE posted:Depending on whose numbers youre using that means "available for sale" not "actually unoccupied". Lol ok no, you have no idea what you’re talking about. The vancancy rate numbers I got were from the census bureau ACS, and they do in fact count places that are owned but unoccupied as vacant. If anything it’s a metric that overcounts vacant units, because even places that are just between occupants for a month are counted as “vacant” if they happen to be in that status when the ACS is taken. And still the vacancy rate in LA is at just 4%. Fill Baptismal fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Jan 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 20:37
|
|
|
nrook posted:It also allows developers to ignore density controls and follow lower-than-average parking requirements if they are building in a jobs-rich or transit-rich area. (Jobs-rich means just what it sounds like; the area must have a lot of jobs available, as determined by the Department of Housing and Community Development. which, last time i saw, within mountain view there were over 3 jobs for every dwelling there that's what they meant when sb50 was reported on as "targeting transit-adjacent areas and wealthy neighborhoods" 
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 20:39
|
|
|
I mean, if you want to cut through the bullshit about what opposition to this bill is really about, look at who voted against it. 9/10 of the senators in areas where homeowners benefit the most from prop 13 were against it. This was about protecting property owners, because they vote. Everything else is a smoke screen honestly.
Fill Baptismal fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Jan 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 20:56
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Thank you for your thoughts. I'm aware of what SB50 claims to do. LA is full of structures getting built by passing normal approval processes and rent is so high in LA that making money is virtually guaranteed. Downtown is a crane showroom, K-town has about 30 active projects and there are all sorts of developments going up along the various light rail tracks under JJJ. No worries. I actually hadn't seen the detailed letter (though I did read the Medium article), so thank you for linking it. I suppose time will tell who is right. If the housing crisis becomes less severe over the next five years without significant zoning reform, I'll be happy to admit nothing like SB50 was necessary. If you're involved in local public housing initiatives in LA, I wish you luck.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 21:06
|
|
|
Kill Bristol posted:Lmao no, this is farcically untrue. The vast majority of opposition the things like SB50 come from wealthy homeowners who don’t want their property value diminished. Left NIMBYs are at most useful idiots for them. In this thread. None of the people you're arguing against right now are NIMBY's and none of them are making NIMBY arguments. Keep on knocking down those all those NIMBY's in here, I'm sure you'll find them! Kill Bristol posted:I mean, if you want to cut through the bullshit about what opposition to this bill is really about, look at who voted against it. 9/10 of the senators in areas where homeowners benefit the most from prop 13 were against it. This was about protecting property owners, because they vote. Everything else is a smoke screen honestly. Smoke screens: code:
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 21:06
|
|
|
Meanwhile, San Luis Obispo effortlessly slides in under the 50,000 population limit  
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 21:08
|
|
|
nrook posted:No worries. I actually hadn't seen the detailed letter (though I did read the Medium article), so thank you for linking it. Over that time, a bunch of people who were barely scraping by will become homeless so a Google employee can live near the Expo line. And instead of working with the groups that actually are trying to get people housed, a bunch of online liberals will have called everyone who had problems with SB50 a NIMBY to shut them up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 21:08
|
|
|
man, i wish some of those state senators posted in this thread, that'd be really convenient
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 21:14
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Over that time, a bunch of people who were barely scraping by will become homeless so a Google employee can live near the Expo line. You act as if the status quo isn't going to do the exact same thing, except with lower heights and more space for parking right next to a subway stop The Glumslinger fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Jan 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 21:26
|
|
|
No but you see there’s a chance someone could have made money off of new apartments, which would be evil capitalism. That’s why only neoliberal sellout organizations like United Farm Workers supported SB50 while real activists like Livable California and the AIDS healthcare foundation opposed it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 21:28
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:You act as if the status quo isn't going to do the exact same thing, except with lower heights and more space for parking right next to a subway stop Luckily, there's more options than "SB50 as it currently stands" and "do nothing". Kill Bristol posted:No but you see there’s a chance someone could have made money off of new apartments, which would be evil capitalism. That’s why only neoliberal sellout organizations like United Farm Workers supported SB50 while real activists like Livable California and the AIDS healthcare foundation opposed it. You want to engage with anything but strawmen? Are we all NIMBY's who are protecting our property values or out of touch leftists who irrationally hate development? If you want to play that game Legal Services for Prisoners with Children sounds like a lot of out of touch ivory tower types to me!
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 21:32
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Luckily, there's more options than "SB50 as it currently stands" and "do nothing". Are there? Like I'm not trying to be a jackass, but are there any other bills in the state legislature that come anywhere near the scope and scale of the problem? The other bill posted up thread sounds absolutely puny compared to the size of the issue
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 21:35
|
|
|
That’s not a straw man, that’s literally the argument being made ITT. When I said suburban detached homes near transit were bad someone suggested overthrowing capitalism instead of building apartments near trains. Like ok, what’s the viable path instead of upzoning? That can actually be done in a way that will be reflected in my rent check sometime in the next decade, not a plan that begins with“First, the revolution”?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 21:38
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:Are there? Like I'm not trying to be a jackass, but are there any other bills in the state legislature that come anywhere near the scope and scale of the problem? The other bill posted up thread sounds absolutely puny compared to the size of the issue I'm not sure. If it dies again probably someone will write a better bill. What's keeping it alive now is people is hoping that passing something, anything, may help, without trying to pass something that is designed to help. I don't think any of the housing advocate groups opposing SB 50 think they're going to get their dream bill passed, nobody with any experience in Sacramento thinks that. They just don't think that this will do much at all, because it's mostly just making lives easier for market rate housing developers and hoping that trickles down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 21:43
|
|
|
Kill Bristol posted:That’s not a straw man, that’s literally the argument being made ITT. When I said suburban detached homes near transit were bad someone suggested overthrowing capitalism instead of building apartments near trains. Quote it. Also there's one idiot in every thread, I don't care if one person is incredibly wrong and posting here. Dead Reckoning posts in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 21:43
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I'm not sure. If it dies again probably someone will write a better bill. What's keeping it alive now is people is hoping that passing something, anything, may help, without trying to pass something that is designed to help. I don't think any of the housing advocate groups opposing SB 50 think they're going to get their dream bill passed, nobody with any experience in Sacramento thinks that. They just don't think that this will do much at all, because it's mostly just making lives easier for market rate housing developers and hoping that trickles down. Have you actually looked at the changes that were made to SB50 this time around? They made a large number of changes to try to help with these issues, increasing the mandatory % of low income housing in units built under it and mandating that more of those units be set aside for people who had recently living in the neighborhood.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 21:47
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:Have you actually looked at the changes that were made to SB50 this time around? They made a large number of changes to try to help with these issues, increasing the mandatory % of low income housing in units built under it and mandating that more of those units be set aside for people who had recently living in the neighborhood. All the housing groups I mentioned it still oppose it because it doesn't do enough to guarantee affordable housing and prevent displacement. The article I posted earlier was written after those changes were made. I agree it slightly outdates the letter from last years version.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 21:52
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:All the housing groups I mentioned it still oppose it because it doesn't do enough to guarantee affordable housing and prevent displacement. What would a bill have to do to be enough?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 21:59
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:Have you actually looked at the changes that were made to SB50 this time around? They made a large number of changes to try to help with these issues, increasing the mandatory % of low income housing in units built under it and mandating that more of those units be set aside for people who had recently living in the neighborhood. there were also demolition protections for existing affordable housing and a timeline to give local governments the opportunity to supersede sb50 with more expansive changes if they didn't already exist
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 22:01
|
|
|
Weembles posted:What would a bill have to do to be enough? At a minimum, reform Ellis Act or repeal Costa Hawkins. That's what Medium opinion piece above advocates. As it stands, everyone is just hoping SB50 maybe someday fixes some our housing problem, and if your housing status in vulnerable, sorry maybe we'll get to you next legislative session. But what do dozens of affordable housing advocates know?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 22:08
|
|
|
I really don't think "everyone" is just assuming that we pass SB50 and now the housing crisis is solved, wipe hands on pants and move on. Actually I don't think anyone is assuming that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 22:15
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:At a minimum, reform Ellis Act or repeal Costa Hawkins. That's what Medium opinion piece above advocates. We had a ballot initiative in 2018 to repeal Costa-Hawkins and it lost badly, 38%-62%. It seems highly unlikely that it will get repealed in the new near future I posted this when the current revisions were announced, which of these are not high enough to help communities? Like, we need to fix the issues of not having enough housing available and we need to upzone near transit to reduce carbon pollution. Which parts of this should be changed to make this more useful to communities? quote:https://twitter.com/sfchronicle/status/1214414547215376384
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 22:16
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:At a minimum, reform Ellis Act or repeal Costa Hawkins. That's what Medium opinion piece above advocates. the vulnerable housing status of... occupants of single-family detached homes in highly desirable areas? what
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 22:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 17:22 |
|
|
Jaxyon posted:But what do dozens of affordable housing advocates know? Are affordable housing advocates saying that we need to reform the Ellis Act and repeal Costa Hawkins, or are they saying that we cannot do anything at all until we do so? Personally, I've heard a lot of one and none of the other, but you follow this issue more closely than I do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 22:22
|
|