|
OMGVBFLOL posted:that stretch of irving west of 19th is a dense area with a lot of shops and restaurants, and a lot of families and old folks, and there's a major streetcar line one block to the south. if there's going to be a big tower of affordable housing plopped anywhere in the sunset that's the place to do it. i hope it succeeds But have you considered that the site will include low income housing? What if there isn't enough parking? Who knows what kind of "people" might move in?????
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2021 21:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
What do you think low income housing actually is? In an area with $3000/mo rents, some place instead offers 2bd. places at $1000/mo? That's a fairy tale. If there's a big tower of brand new places, there are gonna be 500 units at $3500+ in that same area, and then 100 units at $2800 for means-tested "low income" people. It's still incredibly unaffordable. Whether it's racism or classism or just economics, having rents be based on what people earn isn't even a part of the conversation. edit: the demand for housing in California is so high that it's basically impossible to build enough housing that it would decrease in value substantially. There are millions of middle class people with more money than the poor, and who also can't afford housing, waiting in the wings to gobble it up first. It's going to take a very radical change to make things different for the poor. Infinite Karma fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Mar 27, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2021 22:15
|
|
|
ban private ownership of land bing bong problem solved
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2021 22:19
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:What do you think low income housing actually is? In an area with $3000/mo rents, some place instead offers 2bd. places at $1000/mo? That's a fairy tale. This project is led by the Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation, which I understand to be a housing non profit. See the project here https://www.tndc.org/property/2550-irving. quote:Who would live here? Please tell me how this actually is a neoliberal capitalist plot to change the character of the neighborhood, and who must be reflexively opposed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2021 22:33
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:The only way that anyone will be able to live without work in an automated utopia is if landlords are destroyed completely and utterly forever. Otherwise you will continue to have to pay to exist. I'm okay to get rid of landlords if I can have life without work. I just get tired of people using the value of work in an argument for basically anything, but especially for a leftist goal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2021 22:48
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I'm okay to get rid of landlords if I can have life without work. I just get tired of people using the value of work in an argument for basically anything, but especially for a leftist goal. People (ed: leftists) say that because of Marx's labor theory of value and the class war between bourgeoisie and proletariat. It does not mean you should need to work to live or own a home. It just means that if you don't work in a capitalist economy, it's probably because you actively exploit others either by rent extraction, usury, high-volume stock market trading, privately owning the means of production, or any of the other tools available to the bourgeois class. You have to take it in that context in leftist discussion, not the "people who don't work are lazy moochers" paradigm you may be more familiar with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2021 23:14
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:What do you think low income housing actually is? In an area with $3000/mo rents, some place instead offers 2bd. places at $1000/mo? That's a fairy tale. wait you're telling me an 8-story nonprofit housing project isn't going to singlehandedly solve the inequities of housing caused by capitalism??
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2021 23:47
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:edit: the demand for housing in California is so high that it's basically impossible to build enough housing that it would decrease in value substantially. There are millions of middle class people with more money than the poor, and who also can't afford housing, waiting in the wings to gobble it up first. It's going to take a very radical change to make things different for the poor. * Upzone nearly everywhere. The lowest legal density max should still allow for fourplexes and townhomes and small apartment complexes. Vertical limits near rapid transit stations should be particularly generous, with bigass towers possible in the general vicinity of every BART station or similar. Front yards/setback requirements should be drastically minimized or eliminated. Parking requirements, mostly gone, though if you want to add something about underground parking, that's less bad than surface. * Streamline CEQA so it doesn't take years to figure out that replacing a surface parking lot with an apartment building is acceptable. * As of right building: if a project plan meets local regulations, residents and local community councils can't block it on random concerns. Have a problem with how some development might go? Cool, make that a regulation that goes through the normal democratic process, not have it be, "well if enough old angry white people show up at a local meeting..." * Repeal all of prop 13, or at least all of it minus some kind of 'grandma exception' for primary homes where the person has been there a long time and is income burdened by the property tax increases. Dump all the resulting property tax revenue into building public housing, ideally in conjunction with new rapid transit lines/stops. * Use value capture on new major transit expansions, pour all that money into public housing too. And I'm sure actual experts have other ideas that would also help. But even if it was just those five things...I mean jesus, there'd be a shitton more housing, absolutely. edit: forgot one of my faves * Metro-level land use and transportation agency with the final word on zoning and major transit projects. Devolving these decisions to specific cities, or worse, specific neighborhoods, has been a total disaster. The metro area level is the smallest unit that makes sense. Cicero fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Mar 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 00:24
|
|
|
Would I sound stupid if I said that they should try doing something like pass a policy where they must build X amount of housing for the Y amount of people that live in the state? Like as the state grows X amount of affordable housing needs to be built?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 00:27
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Would I sound stupid if I said that they should try doing something like pass a policy where they must build X amount of housing for the Y amount of people that live in the state? Like as the state grows X amount of affordable housing needs to be built? I think frisco city passed a law that said the SF has to build a bunch of public housing
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 00:41
|
|
|
While we're plotting about how to clean up all this mess, including the righteous murder of prop 13, we need to remember to decouple education funding from local property taxes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 00:45
|
|
|
SuperKlaus posted:I don't fault Texas for anything because I hear the really obnoxious ten gallon hat "are freedum" redneck types are in fact all recent transplants from, well, California. So we're to blame, but also thanks Texas for taking those assholes off our hands. If you want some more there are plenty around east and north of Sacramento. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3643995&perpage=40&noseen=1&pagenumber=889#post513515502 https://twitter.com/danrodimer/status/1375203707852353537?s=21 This guy is a perfect example. Born in Florida, lost a run for Congress in Colorado, and now cosplaying as a cowboy in Texas. And he never even rode the bull. The Texas politics thread calls these people “Alamosexuals”. Old James fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Mar 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 00:54
|
|
|
Spazzle posted:No, there is a tower proposed on 26th and irving that the usual whiners are complaining about. There are some terrible graphics saying "out of touch with the neighborhood" with big rings around them I've seen on Facebook. The rings include an 8 story tower across the street from the proposed site. lol it's a 7 story building, not even a tower. so of course a bunch of dipshit clowns are calling this single midrise building a "high rise slum", and whining about communists. Look at this garbage: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Slum-charges-fly-in-fracas-over-affordable-15880321.php quote:The poster read, “No Slums In The Sunset.” It informed residents that a “7-story, 100-unit high-rise slum” was planned for the neighborhood and predicted that within two years the property in question — at 26th Avenue and Irving Street — would “become the best place in San Francisco to buy heroin.” This is the same neighborhood where religious freaks kept trying to block the opening of weed stores, using the same types of arguments about crime and "undesirable" people. Thankfully they failed 
Rah! fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Mar 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 01:11
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:What do you think low income housing actually is? In an area with $3000/mo rents, some place instead offers 2bd. places at $1000/mo? That's a fairy tale. There's a big difference between market rate rents and what a poo poo ton of SF residents actually pay. This is because most rental units in SF have rent control. A neighborhood with $3,000 a month market rate rents also has thousands of residents who are paying hundreds or thousands of dollars less than that. That being said, it is true that some of the "affordable" housing that's being built is actually for people making like, 120% of median area income...which isn't exactly low income lol. Others are for actual poor people, going as low as under 30% of median area income.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 01:20
|
|
|
Rah! posted:A neighborhood with $3,000 a month market rate rents also has thousands of residents who are paying hundreds or thousands of dollars less than that. Also thousands of empty units because the property owning pervert class can afford to ride it out at half occupancy while the nimby vs yimby debate runs interference
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 01:37
|
|
|
Centrist Committee posted:Also thousands of empty units because the property owning pervert class can afford to ride it out at half occupancy while the nimby vs yimby debate runs interference 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 01:53
|
|
|
SF Chronicle made a map of where the Newsom recall signatures came from.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 05:11
|
|
|
I mean, did we really need a map? It's pretty obvious which dopey trump counties were supportive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 05:18
|
|
|
Lol California is about to get its own Trump and absolutely no one has learned anything
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 05:24
|
|
|
I mean that's not surprising, but is also kinda misleading given how vast the difference is in population density is between the coastal and non-coastal counties. Siskiyou (one of the deepest blue on the map) has a population of just under 45K, so even if every single person in that county had signed the recall it would have still fallen short of the 45,369 that signed it in Santa Clara, and many times below the ~280K that signed it in LA. Make no mistake, they pulled hundreds of thousands of signatures from "blue" counties. You could pretty much chop everything off that map that's north of San Bernardino and east of San Benito, and you'd lose less signatures than the total collected in just LA.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 05:33
|
|
|
People are hurting, easy to get their signature.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 05:37
|
|
|
Sydin posted:you'd lose less signatures than the total collected in just LA This state has no idea what’s coming
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 05:42
|
|
|
Cicero posted:It's virtually impossible politically, yes. Practically, with the right change in regulations, it could happen. I'm not an expert, but as an amateur with an interest in this area of government: this sounds like a wonderful way to have even more useless luxury condos sitting empty all over the bay area nothing improves without the decommodification of housing. giving developers the power to poo poo five-over-ones wherever they want is not a solution
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 06:41
|
|
|
I would approve smart, green development. Not simply declaring that anywhere is the right place to build as many housings as that land can hold barring ground limitations. California’s natural resources are so nice that they could draw enough people to deplete those same resources. It’s not about someone’s skyline view or protecting some bougie’s beach access, it’s about making sure you don’t drain rivers dry and put a million people in fire zones while trying to make the state economically accessible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 08:39
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:this sounds like a wonderful way to have even more useless luxury condos sitting empty all over the bay area I'm all for public housing which is why I mentioned pouring a ton of money into it twice in my suggestions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 12:28
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Higher vacancy rate translates into lower rents only if they're being rented and not just used for asset parking or second homes
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 12:37
|
|
|
Vacancy rates until recently in SF were only 4.7% before the pandemic. Most of that probably due to turnover. As of November that rate has increased to 10% because of the pandemic. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-renters-gain-rare-leverage-in-pandemic-with-15754770.php
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 13:50
|
|
|
Vacancy rate only captures the ones they are trying to fill by advertising.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 16:00
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Higher vacancy rate translates into lower rents so in a sense that's true. This is propaganda that isn’t actually true in reality. Source: Any city in America with homeless encampments outside of half empty towers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 16:10
|
|
|
If only there were some way to build more lovely old houses. Vacancy truthers, please tell us how.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 16:40
|
|
|
Centrist Committee posted:This is propaganda that isn’t actually true in reality. Source: Any city in America with homeless encampments outside of half empty towers. Can you source that those towers are, in fact, half empty?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 16:41
|
|
|
Isn't that exact thing happening in SF right now? Huge vacancies while teleworkers move to Sacramento. Rent prices remaining stagnant because landlords have a mortgage to pay and can't rent at a loss.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 17:49
|
|
|
eSporks posted:Isn't that exact thing happening in SF right now? Its in the link I posted literally like 4 posts up the rents are falling. It’s just they’re falling from like $4000 to $3000 or something like that so the prices are far from affordable. I suspect this is temporary as once prices fall below a certain threshold people will move in again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 18:36
|
|
|
That link is four months old
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 18:43
|
|
|
Centrist Committee posted:That link is four months old You’re free to explain how that disproves my point. Or you could, you know, post your own data if you have a problem with the links I’m using.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 19:29
|
|
|
the point isn't that massive vacancy can't affect anything, the point is that building more luxury housing when shitloads of it gets bought as investments doesn't affect vacancy much, and there are far better ways to create more housing supply for working people than letting developers build investment properties for billionaires and hedge funds
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 19:34
|
|
|
Cost of construction is so astronomically high in California - the Bay Area in particular - that developers only really want to build luxury housing because they quite literally cannot make back their costs building affordable housing most of the time. So you see blocks and blocks of luxury apartments and condos going up and if you can afford a $3K+ monthly rent then there are plenty of housing options available to you, but the pool of affordable housing is mostly stagnant or shrinking and becoming further neglected and dilapidated. And when it isn't neglected, it's usually because the owner wants to renovate it into luxury housing so they can charge higher rent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 19:46
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Cost of construction is so astronomically high in California - the Bay Area in particular - that developers only really want to build luxury housing because they quite literally cannot make back their costs building affordable housing most of the time. So you see blocks and blocks of luxury apartments and condos going up and if you can afford a $3K+ monthly rent then there are plenty of housing options available to you, but the pool of affordable housing is mostly stagnant or shrinking and becoming further neglected and dilapidated. And when it isn't neglected, it's usually because the owner wants to renovate it into luxury housing so they can charge higher rent. even if construction was free it would only make business make sense to build only expensive "luxury" housing rather than cheaper stuff because if the cost to produce them is basically the same you can make more money selling an expensive good than a cheap one
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 19:58
|
|
|
whether they can make back their costs isn't relevant; the difference is they can't make as much profit building non-luxury housing, and they will inevitably prioritize profit over anything else because that's how privately-funded lassaize faire development works. you have to control what they build and where, or publicly fund them to build something they otherwise wouldn't, or you just get an evenly-spread film of luxury housing that's pretty well documented to not have much effect on the cost of housing for working people but it's all neolib bandaids until the ability to buy and hold housing you don't live in as an investment is severely curtailed or outright prohibited. no other change would have as much of a profound effect as "the only people competing on price are people who want to live in the unit"
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 20:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
IK Hat On: Hey folks - I'm seeing more one-line shitposts and more posters talking past one another than I would prefer. I'd appreciate it if you would all step up the effort a bit. As a Californian who doesn't know nearly enough about this stuff as I feel I should, I'm learning a lot from this thread. So let's keep it informative and construction and all that junk, as opposed to a clash of egos. Thanks in advance!
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 21:42
|
|
