|
Badger of Basra posted:This is just my opinion as someone who’s pro-density, but many PHIMBY people also tend to put forward public housing as the only solution, and oppose any privately developed project at any size because it involves people making money. This is usually summarized (uncharitably, to be clear) as “we shouldn’t do X because it doesn’t decommodify housing.” California DSA chapters seem to be worst about this for some reason. YIMBY people often ignore the fact that their typical pro-density development ideas result in displacement of the people that actually use public transport, and result in a net increased greenhouse gas emissions due to displacing the poor who then have to commute by car. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-rosenthal-transit-gentrification-metro-ridership-20180220-story.html Instead they rely on the fact that mean rent drops when YIMBY policy is implemented. Look at Seattle which actually did implement YIMBY policy in full https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...m=.8cf12da0a05c Whoops, mean rent dropped but all those drops were felt at the luxury housing market and the lower income and medium income rents continued to rise. Then the global capital investing in real estate development moved on to other markets where luxury development was in demand. https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2018/08/03/additional-building-wont-make-city-housing-more-affordable-says-fed-study/#79de4c31218b https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2018035pap.pdf Housing needs to be decomodified. There does need to be massive public investment in building additional housing, including various private sector initiatives, but the private sector only cares about profit and reducing rent prices is an unprofitable act. YIMBY groups usually advocate the easiest path forward for additional density, which is to push dense luxury development in existing minority neighborhoods and do nothing for the existing residents who are going to be displaced. California YIMBY chapters seem to be the worst about this for some reason.
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2018 08:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 07:41 |
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:My main quibble with the video is 1m30s in which you state that the reason for the gentrification occurring in the neighborhood doesn't matter, as it overlooks why the gentrification is possibly occurring in this specific neighborhood, as opposed to the swathes of highly-valued single family homes in the neighborhood a few blocks away with equal potential transit access and distance from economic opportunity: exclusionary zoning and rabid opposition from monied house owners. One of the most import tenants of YIMBYism, to me, is putting an end to the exclusionary practices of wealthy property owners. In my experience, the most important tenant of YIMBYism in practice, has been fighting against the rights of tenants and enshrining the exclusionary practices of wealthy property owners and developers to build more housing for those like them, the wealthy urbanist. edit: I live in San Francisco, where my experience of YIMBYism is as such http://www.sfexaminer.com/endorse-prop-10-no-sf-yimby-faces-soul-defining-choice/ the leadership against even allowing any city in the state to enact a rent control law. fermun fucked around with this message at 09:55 on Aug 23, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2018 09:47
|
|
|
Cicero posted:No, he's dead wrong about at least some of the things. So the majority of that section is talking about polluted land. It sounds very much like you are 100% ignorant of the fact that there is radioactive waste on these parcels of land which hasn't been tested and that the people living here are having symptoms that are consistent with radiation poisoning. They really would like some real radiation testing, and even the Trump EPA agrees with them. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/EPA-blasts-Navy-for-plan-to-retest-soil-at-former-13164851.php
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2018 10:38
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:How on earth can you ignore SB 827, which was specifically designed to upzone Richmond and Sunset? That and London Breed's election are basically the two hottest YIMBY topics of the past year. The YIMBY project has proven in every single conceivable way to be 100% against exclusionary zoning and has focused entirely on upzoning rich neighborhoods. You can't comment on YIMBYism if you don't know what they actually believe, say, and want to do. As originally written, SB 827 was nothing but a gentrification engine which immediately upzoned all areas with decent public transit and would have displaced the poor in areas with low property values but decent transit. It also allowed for outlying areas to continue to be NIMBYs by just cutting back on bus line service. It was later amended to be better and include some amendments to help with displacement and gentrification, but from the start it was written without any consulting with any advocacy groups. It was also written by Scott Wiener who literally no one but YIMBYs and moneyed interests trust, so no tenant's rights groups got on board because he's the kind of dude that you can't trust to amend things again. Hell, he abstained from the DCCC vote on whether to support or oppose prop 10, repeal of Costa Hawkins to allow rent control to become legal again in California, even when he knew that the SF DCCC would vote in support of it. He also abstained from the vote on Prop C, creating a up to 0.5% tax on corporate incomes above $50M (industry determing the specific rate) which would house thousands of SF's homeless and expand the shelter/navigation center bed count by 1000 (the current average nightly waitlist). How the hell did he think he was going to upzone areas of single family homes without even trying to getting tenants groups on board, anyhow? London Breed is also not very good on anything pro-tenant (she did find funding for June's Prop F, which doesn't take effect until June 2019 and already had funding secured in November's Prop C, so she could've saved work by endorsing Prop C), she has ramped up homeless sweeps, and has not endorsed Prop C nor Prop 10. During her time as president of the board of supervisors, she authored a shockingly small amount of legislation during her tenure, and never even met with her constituents at Midtown. I support a massive upzoning to mid-rise buildings (to about 10 +/- 2 stories) but I think that tenant protections with teeth for existing residents have to be factored in from the start and given actual serious weight in terms of what the bill will do in their neighborhoods. I also think that it needs an on-site inclusionary housing target and that the upzoning should be phased-in by zip code from highest income to lowest within a census-designated area over about 8-10 years and should also phase in earlier for areas which currently have a high percentage of single family homes. There should also be vacancy taxes, and we need to repeal Prop 13. I also want a public bank both state-wide (which is endorsed by the state Democratic party) and locally so that SF's ~$30B that currently sits in private banks could instead be investing in the city, including funding the building of public housing, which I think should exist at all income levels using an expanded SF Mayor's Office of Housing Ownership program. There's a lot more that I want and a lot of these things are something that will be big fights, but they are worth having as goals even if you accept compromises and by setting them as initial goals you can get better legislation. YIMBYism as I've seen it expressed, is a fundamentally libertarian capitalist ideology, it starts from a compromised position of doing what the large developers and landlords would like to have changed and doesn't have an answer for what happens when the developers build enough high end that they see a luxury housing demand decline so move on to where it's more profitable to build in another city, another state, another country, or hell, their investors just move on to another non-construction investment. Over the last 40-50 years we've seen a massive divestment from the housing market by the public sector, HUD's budget is inflation-adjusted something like 1/5 of what it was 40 years ago, Prop 13 cripples city property tax income and prevents cities from actually having the kind of tax income to build the housing that is needed but which the private sector is not building. These are things that can be undone. YIMBYs keep throwing existing residents under the bus over and over under the technocratic idea that private industry will build to their needs eventually after it meets current luxury demand. I'm saying hey, we can work together and be allies if you factor in a chunk of these priorities.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2018 08:02
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:Replacing golf courses with medium-density subsidized housing is the way to go, IMO. Get those property values for the neighboring SFHs down. Golf courses suck rear end. Look at all these loving golf courses in SF and nearby. I circled the land used by each of those golf courses in red, also one driving range which I circled in blue.  What a lovely use of space, a hobby that only the rich can generally afford. fermun fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Apr 17, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2019 05:39
|
|