|
But if you ban parking, only the criminals will have parking.
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 05:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 09:17 |
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:In the context of a new building, fancy finishings aren't much more expensive than cheap finishings, especially as buildings get taller (=bigger planning & structure costs). Marginal cost to use in-fashion cabinets/floors/countertops/appliances is small relative to total cost. In unit wash/dry is a closet sized space if you're building from scratch and can plan plumbing/vent stacks for it. Also not expensive for a big desirability increase. It's not like a remodel where you're working around existing design + you're already going to pay labor for installing things, it's just which particular materials are being installed. right, and my point is that a 40-story building with eight 600sqft simply-finished studios per floor is ~320 units that are, and this is key, less desirable to people who are already housing secure. The cluster of five-over-ones on the same amount of land would be like 20-40 units, probably a total of about 40-80 bedrooms that are, and this is also important, priced out of reach of the working poor because of their desirability to people who are already housing secure. massive amounts of housing less desirable to people who aren't poor is exactly what we need and what developers will never, for the reasons you describe, build without an incentive to do so and a threat if they don't. those buildings aren't apples to apples obviously because of the size difference, but that's beside the point. the latter is the only thing developers will ever build without intervention, and the massive block of tiny studios is what the government has the power to make get built, if the political will existed. one houses 320 previously housing-insecure individuals and families, the other shuffles around some already housing secure locals and/or brings even more new residents to the area. "just build more dammit" is right, but "just let developers build what they will" is wrong Cactus Ghost fucked around with this message at 08:31 on Apr 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 08:25
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:words about tall skinny towers vs five-over-ones
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 15:13
|
|
|
Most people, poor or not, don't want a 600sqft studio. The are tons and tons of poor people who have kids, or live with extended families, or have/want roommates to split living expenses with. Even outside of the goal of making them less desirable, a 40 story building with no families except for the most desperately poor (who have 4+ people living in a studio) is a recipe for instability.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 16:10
|
|
|
Why are we trying to make apartments less desirable to stop the bourgeois from renting them, when we can just give everyone a nice home and not let the bourgeois boomer couple live in a mansion with an ice cream fridge? Trying to work within 'the market' won't work. "Give the poors a studio box" doesn't sit well with me. Bread and ROSES.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 16:20
|
|
|
You guys are acting like this is a difficult problem when it's been solved multiple times: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqJbE1bvdgo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oeLnpAmmfI These videos should be mandatory watching for anyone in this thread talking about housing policy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 16:32
|
|
|
droll posted:Why are we trying to make apartments less desirable to stop the bourgeois from renting them, when we can just give everyone a nice home and not let the bourgeois boomer couple live in a mansion with an ice cream fridge? Trying to work within 'the market' won't work. "Give the poors a studio box" doesn't sit well with me. Bread and ROSES. Mansions and ice cream fridges are fine, the real problem is the boomer couple sitting on multiple Prop 13 protected investment properties and campaigning against fair housing because it might eat into their profits, and their idiot friends and admirers who vote against their own interests because they think they’ll be able to do the same thing one day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 18:51
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:Mansions [...] are fine No they are not. They have never been and will never be an efficient use of land, which is a premium resource in California.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 18:58
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:Mansions and ice cream fridges are fine, the real problem is the boomer couple sitting on multiple Prop 13 protected investment properties and campaigning against fair housing because it might eat into their profits, and their idiot friends and admirers who vote against their own interests because they think they’ll be able to do the same thing one day. Bingo, while it's true homeowners outvote renters, it's also a problem that many renters consider themselves temporarily embarassed landlords and so vote against renter protections because they don't want to deal with them when they "make it". Also just the general cultural problem in this country where poverty is associated with laziness or stupidity on the part of the impoverished, so people who can afford to pay their rents think "well *I* can pay my rent, so why can't everybody? People who cry about their rents and want rent control should just work harder/be better with their money."
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 19:00
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:Mansions and ice cream fridges are fine No. 2 retired boomers living in a 4 bed 2 bath painted lady while a multi-generational worker family of 6 try to rent a 2 bedroom apartment is not fine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 19:10
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Bingo, while it's true homeowners outvote renters, it's also a problem that many renters consider themselves temporarily embarassed landlords and so vote against renter protections because they don't want to deal with them when they "make it". This is a dumb bad misread of American politics. The original "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" quote attributed to Steinbeck is a misquote and a decontextualization. In the original, he's referring to a specific group of middle-class Communists he knew in the 30s who he felt like weren't actually dedicated revolutionaries, but were "temporarily embarrassed capitalists." The average poor or working person has no delusions about their position in the hierarchy or their ability through hard work and grit to get to the top. Their chief political characteristic is disengagement, either due to appropriate disillusion about the degree to which their needs are considered by the political class, or to simple weariness and overwork. Voting and other political activity increases as you move up the scale of wealth and income, both because more wealth produces more investment in the outcomes of political decisions, and because it affords you more leisure and greater resources to partake in politics. The idea that poor or working class Americans "vote against their interests" based on an internalized belief that one day they'll make it is absolute poison to actual organizing, and is just a way for people who think they're smart to look down on the working class and blame them for their own problems.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 19:12
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:No they are not. They have never been and will never be an efficient use of land, which is a premium resource in California. We had an argument literally a few pages ago about million dollar homes blocking affordable housing and your stance seemed to be on the side of the home owners because.. quote:
So based on this stance, those Mcmansions are OK because they are "owned".
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 19:27
|
|
|
Kenning posted:This is a dumb bad misread of American politics. It's actually not and for somebody talking about organizing you don't seem to have actually talked to many people because this is a very common sentiment you hear when canvasing for rent control.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 19:58
|
|
|
Solaris 2.0 posted:So based on this stance, those Mcmansions are OK because they are "owned". Person you are quoting: Better that they are owned by a worker than rented out. ^ A correct statement. Me: And even better than being owned by a worker, we should distribute homes equitably based on the worker's needs. ^ Also correct.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 20:08
|
|
|
Solaris 2.0 posted:We had an argument literally a few pages ago about million dollar homes blocking affordable housing and your stance seemed to be on the side of the home owners because.. I explained to you many, many times that my response was in response to your question: Solaris 2.0 posted:Is a single family home owner who uses their political power to form covenants/HOAs/get politicians on a council to oppose affordable housing and keep their little white enclave exclusionary any better than a landlord who exploits their tenants? My answer is "yes," for the reasons I laid out here: Cup Runneth Over posted:I would say "yes," they are less worse, because a single family home owner is at least a worker who pays down their mortgage through labor. A landlord is purely a bourgeois parasite. Cup Runneth Over posted:Doesn't matter what a landlord owns. They pay for it with other people's money they didn't work for. Didn't say they weren't a problem. I said that the owners of those homes were workers, unlike landlords. That does not mean I think that single family home owners are "OK" or that I'm "on their side." It means I think that in the queue for the guillotine, landlords go first, always and forever, which is the question you posed. If you're dissatisfied with this answer because you asked the wrong question, that's not my problem. At this point you are being willfully ignorant and combative, and it's inappropriate. I would furthermore suggest that behavior like yours is why it is so difficult for California leftist housing advocates to find common ground and work together. It's not even a matter of agreeing on things -- simply having different priorities is enough for certain people to fly into a rage and accuse each other of being faux-leftists and NIMBYs. I could at this point suggest that you have been awfully defensive of "mom and pop landlords" and that perhaps yourself have a conflict of interest on the subject of housing policy. But I haven't, because that isn't constructive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 20:18
|
|
|
HOAs restricting zoning are also rent seeking though, they're doing the same thing as landlords just by a slightly different mechanism
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 20:21
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:HOAs restricting zoning are also rent seeking though, they're doing the same thing as landlords just by a slightly different mechanism HOAs indeed ought to be abolished, but you still own the land you own under a HOA. The most you pay to a HOA is a membership fee as far as I know -- your mortgage goes to the bank. e: Furthermore, while unjust, problematic, and frequently bigoted, HOAs are associations which are (by OP's own admission) consisting of and run by (usually) the homeowners that the association governs, which is a very different relationship from landlord-tenant. HOAs are not run for profit to my knowledge, and aside from ones where the developer maintains a stake everyone in them is a worker who owns their own home. No one lives off of being head of an HOA as "passive income." Cup Runneth Over fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Apr 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 20:28
|
|
|
This isn't thread C-SPAM Communism hot takes thread... distribute homes based on the worker's needs? There are tens of millions of workers who would utilize a big home well, how do you decide who gets to live in the mansion? Here's a hint - whatever status or cachet or resources are required to be at the top of the list is still a form of capital that people will do their best to control and rent-seek with. Million dollar homes don't block rent control because they're afraid of having their million dollar homes demolished and have brutalist apartment towers built in their place, they block rent control because the wealthy people who own them are greedy assholes who want to both own million dollar houses, and not have to look at cheaper houses on their way to the grocery store, AND be guaranteed appreciation on their assets, AND have that be leveraged into ever-increasing capital. Even if they lost, the stakes aren't them losing their mansions, the stakes are apartments being built across town in old strip malls and industrial buildings that compete with their passive capital accumulation. Why are we even talking about the McMansions themselves? Demolishing them would just be a pointlessly punitive waste of resources unless we desperately needed the land back for a different use, which we absolutely don't, and if we did, would we really choose to destroy the most valuable stuff first? It's the petit bourgeoisie controlling the housing market and preventing the kind of development, programs, and tax policies we need that's the problem. Taking away their McMansion doesn't give us good policies, taking away their monopoly on every lever of power lets us have good policies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 20:39
|
|
|
1. Get rid of landlords 2. Take existing homes away from people that don't need that home, give it to people that do 3. Build homes for people that need them 1, 2 and 3 occur simultaneously. There, I solved your "problem" with a 'C-SPAM Communist Hot Take' which I honestly have no understanding of because I've never read that subforum.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 20:52
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:right, and my point is that a 40-story building with eight 600sqft simply-finished studios per floor is ~320 units that are, and this is key, less desirable to people who are already housing secure. The cluster of five-over-ones on the same amount of land would be like 20-40 units, probably a total of about 40-80 bedrooms that are, and this is also important, priced out of reach of the working poor because of their desirability to people who are already housing secure. massive amounts of housing less desirable to people who aren't poor is exactly what we need and what developers will never, for the reasons you describe, build without an incentive to do so and a threat if they don't. There actually are buildings full of studio apartments going up in SF. Hundreds of tiny units in dense, transit-rich areas...but half of them are still marketed towards rich people (ones who don't need a big distracting house, and who like sharing everything with their neighbors, such as bathrooms, we call it a disruptor maker influencer space) and cost $69000 per month 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 21:10
|
|
|
So for step 2... how do you go about figuring out who doesn't need that home? Surprise police inspections at every grandma's house every few months to see if she's still using it properly, and that her kids haven't moved out yet? If you do somehow solve that problem, where do you put her? What do you do with her stuff, if she can't fit it all in her new house? How far is it okay to move grandma? Does everyone need a government analyst to go looking at houses with them when they want to move? And for step 1, how do you get rid of landlords? Do people still pay in some way for their living situation? Do people use money at all? Do you make owning all homes illegal? Just owning more than 1 home? If I own a home and my girlfriend owns a home, are we forced to sell one when she starts sleeping over? If we have kids, are they allowed to own a home? Or is there a limit and an age minimum? If I am a college student or a worker who travels often, am I not allowed to rent a place to live short-term? Are the people who manage those rentals allowed to get paid for their labor in repairs and paperwork and compliance, even if they don't get paid for their capital investment? It's a C-SPAM hot take because what you said is a twitter post, not a policy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 21:11
|
|
|
droll posted:1. Get rid of landlords I would like to correct "existing homes" to "existing houses/land" because buildings you don't live in are not your homes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 21:42
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:So for step 2... how do you go about figuring out who doesn't need that home? Vacant properties are a statistic that is already tracked. They would be seized with eminent domain, along with every property which is listed as a non-commercial rental property unless the property is occupied by the owner. It would be accomplished no differently than using eminent domain to seize areas for development for other purposes. Infinite Karma posted:And for step 1, how do you get rid of landlords? Cup Runneth Over posted:You guys are acting like this is a difficult problem when it's been solved multiple times: Kindly watch these long-form video essays for examples of state-owned, landlord-free housing which has been accomplished in the past... unless, of course, you're just here to make bad faith dunks on "twitter communists."
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 21:48
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:This isn't thread C-SPAM Communism hot takes thread... distribute homes based on the worker's needs? There are tens of millions of workers who would utilize a big home well, how do you decide who gets to live in the mansion? Here's a hint - whatever status or cachet or resources are required to be at the top of the list is still a form of capital that people will do their best to control and rent-seek with. Pretty much. These home owners aren't "petit bourgeois" they're assholes who refuse any sort of development in their community. They'll refuse to have any type of housing built, especially low income or "projects".
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 21:49
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Vacant properties are a statistic that is already tracked. They would be seized with eminent domain, along with every property which is listed as a non-commercial rental property unless the property is occupied by the owner. It would be accomplished no differently than using eminent domain to seize areas for development for other purposes. I kinda pity whoever winds up having to foot the bill to take places like The Sea Ranch and upgrade the roads, septic systems, and the town dump for continious occupation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 22:42
|
|
|
droll posted:Why are we trying to make apartments less desirable to stop the bourgeois from renting them, when we can just give everyone a nice home and not let the bourgeois boomer couple live in a mansion with an ice cream fridge? Trying to work within 'the market' won't work. "Give the poors a studio box" doesn't sit well with me. Bread and ROSES. i'm all for even more radical changes; there's far more radical possibilities than what i described that are still within current legal and technical limits. that's what's frustrating, is something like what i described isn't even that radical, it's just zoning permitting and funding, but it still won't happen because developers and landlords own local government e: also what i described is also not that radical in that it is already a thing that exists under other liberal democracies with market economies. it wouldn't even require any fundamental changes in how housing is bought sold and rented. but nope, gotta build more stupid poo poo for people who are already housing-secure Cactus Ghost fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Apr 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 07:28
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Most people, poor or not, don't want a 600sqft studio. SROs in sf are 80-200sqft and they are perpetually near full capacity
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 07:42
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:And for step 1, how do you get rid of landlords? Preferably via public guillotines, but failing that, firing squads in public squares would work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 08:07
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:SROs in sf are 80-200sqft and they are perpetually near full capacity I lived in one in North Beach for a year when making entry level pay. Even the higher end ones are slumlord-run hellholes with bad internet and zero room for your stuff. They’re also dirt cheap (well under 1k a month) which is why poor people snatch them up the first chance they can get.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 14:27
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:SROs in sf are 80-200sqft and they are perpetually near full capacity Because they're cheap enough to be affordable, which is more than can be said for... anything else in SF. I highly doubt it's many people's dream to live in an 80sqft room.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 17:48
|
|
|
i lived in sros for a while too, when my other option was "sleep outside". that's the point. they exist and are accessible to the housing-insecure because even as hosed as the housing market got after the twitter and fb ipos, the overnight millionaires who moved from the suburbs never would have considered them an option.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 18:02
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Because they're cheap enough to be affordable, which is more than can be said for... anything else in SF. I highly doubt it's many people's dream to live in an 80sqft room. In fairness, not every apartment has to be your dream. It just has to be livable, affordable, and private, so you can live in SF and not be homeless. I'm not saying we should or need to build coffin beds for poor people, but the fact that SROs exist and are perpetually near full capacity proves this is wrong: Infinite Karma posted:Most people, poor or not, don't want a 600sqft studio. The are tons and tons of poor people who have kids, or live with extended families, or have/want roommates to split living expenses with. Even outside of the goal of making them less desirable, a 40 story building with no families except for the most desperately poor (who have 4+ people living in a studio) is a recipe for instability. I lived in a 600sqft studio for a while and I wasn't even poor. It was perfectly fine for my needs and I'd probably still be living in one if I didn't get married, because it's cheap and private.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 18:03
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:I lived in a 600sqft studio for a while and I wasn't even poor. It was perfectly fine for my needs and I'd probably still be living in one if I didn't get married, because it's cheap and private.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 20:16
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:I lived in a 600sqft studio for a while and I wasn't even poor. It was perfectly fine for my needs and I'd probably still be living in one if I didn't get married, because it's cheap and private. A SRO is better than sleeping on the street, but I don't think you'd get many people taking a SRO over a studio if they had a choice. Studio vs 1 bed vs 2 bed is much more of a situation-dependent choice
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 20:50
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Because they're cheap enough to be affordable, which is more than can be said for... anything else in SF. Nothing else is affordable in SF? Not the 30,000 public housing units, or the 140,000 rent controlled units, or the thousands of newer affordable units, or rooms in shared households? SF has tons of housing occupied by non-rich people, but it seems like i have to constantly remind people of this lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 21:09
|
|
|
Rah! posted:Nothing else is affordable in SF? What's the implication here? That there isn't actually a shortage of afforable housing in SF or that SF is already full with regard to the poors and the rest should "pa vini?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 21:27
|
|
|
Weembles posted:What's the implication here? That there isn't actually a shortage of afforable housing in SF or that SF is already full with regard to the poors and the rest should "pa vini?" I think the point is that SROs are not the only cheap option. Not that everything is sunshine and rainbows. The comment they were responding to was hyperbolic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 21:32
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:A SRO is better than sleeping on the street, but I don't think you'd get many people taking a SRO over a studio if they had a choice. That's kinda the point, there's a LOT of people right now who don't even have that choice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 21:43
|
|
|
I understand SRO's are better then nothing - obviously - but building nothing but tons of SRO's or small studio apartments only helps those who are single or willing to cram multiple people into a small space with no privacy. As has been mentioned some people have partners or children or extended family they want/need to live with and that obviously won't cut it. It's better than being homeless, but it doesn't solve the housing crisis. Affordable mixed-size apartments as another poster mentioned are the best solution that is feasible right now, because it provides affordable, long-term housing options to unhoused and lower income families as well as individuals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 09:17 |
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:I think the point is that SROs are not the only cheap option. Not that everything is sunshine and rainbows. The comment they were responding to was hyperbolic. This whole conversation has been about there being little to no available affordable housing. It's not hyperbolic, it's just a restatement of the premise. Weembles fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Apr 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 21:53
|
|