|
Class Warcraft posted:Land owners oppose new development because it threatens to undermine their property value, which is usually their largest asset. Why are you assuming renters will act likewise when they have no equity at stake? Building more housing has no direct impact on them beyond making it less scarce and therefore more affordable. It's because redevelopment is a common method for overcoming rent control statutes. Renters may like houses getting built in other areas, but they don't want their own area getting rebuilt because that might end up voiding their contract.
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 10:50 |
|
|
Class Warcraft posted:Land owners oppose new development because it threatens to undermine their property value, which is usually their largest asset. Why are you assuming renters will act likewise when they have no equity at stake? Building more housing has no direct impact on them beyond making it less scarce and therefore more affordable. Renters (rent control or not) are as prone to traffic/parking/"character of the neighborhood" objections to construction as home owners. They might not have money riding on the issue, money isn't the only factor that guides people's actions. Also, If you have a rent controlled apartment, you're removed from the market so you just don't care if housing is cheap or expensive. You got yours and you likely have very little chance to get another rent controlled place in your area, so you defend what you have as if you own it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 17:10
|
|
|
Class Warcraft posted:Land owners oppose new development because it threatens to undermine their property value, which is usually their largest asset. Why are you assuming renters will act likewise when they have no equity at stake? Building more housing has no direct impact on them beyond making it less scarce and therefore more affordable. Kaal said something similar, but I think its more than that. If you are paying 50% of market rent (or whatever), then moving is going to trigger a massive increase in costs. If this cost is unaffordable then being forced to move is disastrous. This makes people extremely oppositional to redevelopment since that means you might end up with your own housing being redeveloped. Redevelopment is how you increase housing density, its not something that is only used to get around rent control. But if you are basically getting a massive housing subsidy, then your apartment being redeveloped changes from an annoyance to an existential threat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 17:15
|
|
|
To my mind, rent control has all the normal issues of public-private partnerships - in particular that it lacks stability because the stakeholder interests typically do not align. This results in all sorts of behavior detrimental to the project as a whole. The solution is to separate the stakeholders (I.e. Have the city build affordable housing districts on its own) and to minimize instability by shortening the partnership duration (I.e. Focus rent control on annual contract changes and implementing lease-to-own, rather than creating a special class of long-term renter).
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 17:35
|
|
|
The traditional argument against rent control is that it doesn't work in action, economically. Thought I don't know that is as well studied as people like to pretend.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 17:58
|
|
|
With California Article 34 making it nearly impossible to build affordable housing and Costa-Hawkins preventing new development from eventually slipping into rent-control, you've got a perfect argument for rich Republican-leaning people to lean into Republican arguments.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 18:21
|
|
|
Ballot finally came  Also got a spicy anti-Dave Cortese/pro-Ann Ravel mailer funded by Lyft, Uber, and DaVita. Not even trying to hide where the interests lie I guess. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 18:33
|
|
|
My vote on 21 will probably depend on how cynical I feel about local government at the time I fill out my ballot. I've never read an argument for why price controls on housing should behave differently than price controls on anything else that didn't seem like wishful thinking. I think that agrees with observational studies on what happens in practice. Fewer existing residents evicted or voluntarily move, less housing construction, and higher market rents than comparable non-rent controlled areas. It's a power local government should have to use as a bandaid because things that increasing housing supply like building public housing or rezoning denser will take years to do anything. But rent control and then not actually doing anything else just kicks the can down the road with an even worse housing shortage to deal with later.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 18:50
|
|
|
Rent control is normally bad, yeah. It’s a really inefficient way to keep rent down that doesn’t always work, and leads to things like landlords not giving a poo poo about repairing or maintaining units (because they can’t charge any more for nicer units, and they know that a rent controlled unit will be snapped up in a second once made available). And yes, it does have the potential to create FYGM thinking among long term tenants, who have their protections, and thus no incentive to care at all about people who might be housing insecure, or people who want to live in the area but can’t afford to. In the context of the political economy of California, advocating for rent control is often a way for political organizations or candidates to posture as progressive/woke/radical/etc without having to do anything that would actually threaten the material interests of the homeowner class (Like allowing more housing to be built) who still have a hammerlock on our politics. All that being said, you know what? I’ll probably still vote for 21. The housing market is so hosed right now in California that we’re already seeing a lot of those negative effects anyway. Housing scarcity is so hosed that people pay luxury housing prices for lovely housing in places like that bay if they can afford them, and get pushed out further into longer commutes or out of secure housing altogether if they can’t. Rent control won’t be a cure-all. It very likely might not help at all. But we’re in a situation that’s so bad already that we’re already experiencing many of the negative externalities if rent-control anyway, without any of the benefits.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 20:17
|
|
|
Rent control means using both hands.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 20:22
|
|
|
Rent control has its minuses and unintentional externalities, 100%. And between landlords not wanting rent control because it eats into their rent-seeking and progressives not wanting it because it's ineffective a lot of the time, it doesn't have a big audience. But Costa-Hawkins preempts all actual rent control ordinances that any city or county might have the popular or political will for, so walking it back seems like a blatant improvement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 20:25
|
|
|
Spazzle posted:I know this is making GBS threads into the wind, but I'm going say here that rent control is a bad thing for exactly the same reason that prop 13 is bad. It creates a reactionary class of renters (rather than homeowners in prop 13) who can never move and will reflexively oppose any development. A high development environment has a nonzero chance of kicking them out of their low rent situation, so it becomes opposed on principle. It also fucks over the young for the benefit of those who got in long in the past. The "reactionary class of renters" is typically impoverished people who actually (oftentimes) subsist thanks to the benefit whereas Prop 13 gives a handout to longtime landowners, who are a very wealthy cohort least in need of help. It's true that rent control can disincentive some development but it's not remotely in the same category as Prop 13. Also the prop doesn't set up universal rent control or even kick off any actual rent control at all, it just gives localities the power to enact rent control if they choose. Also page 666 hail satan Vox Nihili fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Oct 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
Analyses of rent control that only consider economics are short-sighted. Rent control is a reformist half-measure for sure, but like Medicare 4 All it's one that does profoundly shift certain relations of power. A rent-controlled building will be easier to organize because the tenants won't have to worry about arbitrary evictions or punitive rent increases. This creates the possibility for additional, more fundamental changes in the ways housing is provided in our society. Hail Satan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 20:48
|
|
|
God drat, 22 is going to pass isn't it. What a shithole system Hail Satan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 20:50
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Rent control has its minuses and unintentional externalities, 100%. And between landlords not wanting rent control because it eats into their rent-seeking and progressives not wanting it because it's ineffective a lot of the time, it doesn't have a big audience. I hope we can all agree that whether we think rent control is good or bad in specific instances, dumping Costa-Hawkins is unambiguously good. Regulating rent control at the state level is insane.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 20:58
|
|
|
Basic housing should be free. Rent control is good, but it's a bandaid to a much larger issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 21:05
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:God drat, 22 is going to pass isn't it. Vote blew, no matter who.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 21:29
|
|
|
Vote yes on 21 then worry about the details of any local ordinance when they come up. Hail satan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 21:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/abc7newsbayarea/status/1316539463942713347?s=21quote:SONOMA COUNTY, Calif. (KGO) -- The California Republican Party said it plans to expand a ballot drop box program despite a cease and desist order from Secretary of State Alex Padilla. So either the CAGOP still hates ballot harvesting and is either doing this stunt to get a suit and take it to court, or make it look bad in the public eye; or they’ve accepted it and are just doing it in the stupidest and most law-breaking way possible. oh and hail satan
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 01:49
|
|
|
^^^^ It's the chaos narrative. The goal is distrust in the voting process. Hey so JusticeLA posted up a video discussion of Prop 25 on their facebook. Apologies for the FB link it might be on the IG or elsewhere but this is where I found it. https://www.facebook.com/JusticeLANow/videos/737283407002917
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 01:51
|
|
|
DukeDuke posted:https://twitter.com/abc7newsbayarea/status/1316539463942713347?s=21
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 02:06
|
|
|
Spazzle posted:Kaal said something similar, but I think its more than that. If you are paying 50% of market rent (or whatever), then moving is going to trigger a massive increase in costs. If this cost is unaffordable then being forced to move is disastrous. This makes people extremely oppositional to redevelopment since that means you might end up with your own housing being redeveloped. Redevelopment is how you increase housing density, its not something that is only used to get around rent control. But if you are basically getting a massive housing subsidy, then your apartment being redeveloped changes from an annoyance to an existential threat. Weembles posted:Renters (rent control or not) are as prone to traffic/parking/"character of the neighborhood" objections to construction as home owners. They might not have money riding on the issue, money isn't the only factor that guides people's actions. Kaal posted:It's because redevelopment is a common method for overcoming rent control statutes. Renters may like houses getting built in other areas, but they don't want their own area getting rebuilt because that might end up voiding their contract. In a theoretical scenario where renters are preventing their housing from being redeveloped into higher density housing, sure - but almost all the housing construction that is happening in California is towards McMansions and extremely low-density luxury condos. Hell, I remember my apartment complex spent years in a legal dispute with Disneyland because they wanted the city to tear our buildings down and build a hotel on our lot instead. Assuming a Californian in a rent controlled apartment would be "out of the market" also seems like a stretch considering that we've built nothing but luxury housing for the last 40 years. Any affordable apartment still out there is an old beat-up shithole, and every Californian's end goal is to get a house so they can use it to leverage enough wealth to maybe retire some day. None of that will go away just because rent stops going up 5% every year. Honestly, this kind of sounds like an accelerationist take. "If too many people have secure housing it'll be hard to build high-density housing anywhere!" That's fine and all, but already no one is building high-density housing, and an enormous proportions of Californians aren't able to afford rent anymore.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 04:21
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:God drat, 22 is going to pass isn't it. The only substantial polling I can find on it is from 3 weeks ago and it shows that Prop 22 is...something of a coin toss as to passing. It needs to hit 50 percent to pass and several polls showed it at around 39 percent yes, 36 percent no, with 25 percent undecided. How those undecideds break will probably determine whether or not it passes. I'm curious what happens if it passes and Uber goes under in 2-5 years anyway. Last time I checked they were wildly unprofitable with no obvious path to profitability. Maybe that has changed recently, but Prop 22 feels like an existential battle for them. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4cd2r446 - direct link to a poll on it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 04:36
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:^^^^ It's the chaos narrative. The goal is distrust in the voting process. What kind of justice org focused around people of color is silent on prop 22 on their own ballot recommendation?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 04:50
|
|
|
yo Biden and Trump were at the bottom of the ballot for some reason. whatever. I voted! long live the loving beast 666
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 05:00
|
|
|
I thought this podcast was a really decent take on the rent control item Listening to the pro 21 guy and the anti-21 representative cemented me in favor of 21 passing. The economic view of how to make the housing market "efficient" is totally hosed and should be distrusted immensely. The housing market should be decommodified and made as poor of an investment vehicle as we can imagine. That's the only way to save people. If extreme-rent control runs out investors, speculators, and developers from the space entirely almost everyone would be better off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 05:02
|
|
|
Hell yeah
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 05:08
|
|
|
Has anybody else not gotten their ballot in the mail? Website says it was mailed to me 10/5 and I got my voter information packet to my address with no issue. Not sure at what point I should be following up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 05:15
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:God drat, 22 is going to pass isn't it. “If we make things too hard for Uber and Lyft, they’ll just shut down entirely and take away everyone’s side gigs. Gotta be nice to big biz or they’ll stop generously offering jobs out of the goodness of their hearts.”
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 05:31
|
|
|
pandy fackler posted:Has anybody else not gotten their ballot in the mail? Website says it was mailed to me 10/5 and I got my voter information packet to my address with no issue. Not sure at what point I should be following up. What county are you in
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 05:33
|
|
|
Say one were to vote green. What happens at the 5%? funding threshold?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 05:37
|
|
|
Oh no, the Uber and Lyft jobs that will be gone if they can complete their transformation to self driving anyway!
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 05:37
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Hey so JusticeLA posted up a video discussion of Prop 25 on their facebook. Apologies for the FB link it might be on the IG or elsewhere but this is where I found it. Thanks this is very helpful and is making me shift from Lean No on 25 to (Very) Likely No on 25. I’ve only watched the first 30 minutes, and am pretty solidly convinced already. If you think the remaining ~50 mins are still worth watching though, let me know.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 05:50
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:What county are you in Humboldt. I only know a few people in my town who registered for mail in but they've all received theirs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 06:15
|
|
|
hello page 666 hail satan I'm extremely torn on the bail prop but I think I fall in the camp of '"if this gets voted down it's going to be along while before cash bail is under threat again" because that's probably what most messaging will seize on. I definitely am pushing for the election of progressive DAs as well to come at the problem at both ends but cash bail is a loving travesty. But mostly fingers loving crossed for 15 to pass and 22 to eat poo poo, goddamn.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 07:20
|
|
|
60% of rental units in SF are rent controlled. It's the only way a lot of people can afford to live in the city whether its flawed or not, getting rid of it means loving over the non-rich population of the city (even more!)...i don't see that as a good thing
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 07:23
|
|
|
Rainbow Knight posted:yo Biden and Trump were at the bottom of the ballot for some reason. Ballots are printed with the order of candidates shuffled randomly because otherwise the person at the top wins more. We are not clever apes. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 07:34
|
|
|
Hail Satan. My final prop votes, if anybody cares: Yes: 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 21, 23, 24 No: 14, 20, 22. The hardest No vote I've ever cast: 25. Several posters have made good arguments here for why it is worse than the status quo. And ultimately a) I do not trust the CA Democrats to do anything usefully progressive and fix this broken legislation, and b) if I believed in voting for lovely half measures because they might possibly be better than what we have now if you squint, I wouldn't have this No Joe tag. It loving sucks that a No vote could potentially send a message to the legislature that cash bail is popular, but I'm more worried that 25 passes and the legislature refuses to fix the law under the guise of "reform has already been passed" when in fact "reform" has just further entrenched an incredibly racist system. gently caress 2020.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 07:51
|
|
|
From the PYF Good Tweets thread: https://twitter.com/MarkAgee/status/1316583418751148033
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 09:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 10:50 |
|
|
Hail Satan  California Über Alles
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 09:58
|
|
