9 ms·

Around 65% of the population in SF are renters. If it were simply homeowners vs renters, renters would win in a landslide. Who do you think was pushing for pr

by birken 10y ago

Around 65% of the population in SF are renters. If it were simply homeowners vs renters, renters would win in a landslide. Who do you think was pushing for proposition I (an 18 month development moratorium in the mission) to pass? It wasn't homeowners, that's for sure. It was renters living in the Mission who were (not incorrectly) terrified that new development means they will get evicted and displaced. Why did 60% of SF voters (keeping in mind only 30% are homeowners) vote for Proposition B, requiring a city wide up-or-down vote on all new waterfront development over 40-80 feet? A measure that was also endorsed by multiple major newspapers? Because people are afraid of everything changing too quickly and the nice beautiful waterfront turning into midtown Manhattan. It's complicated. This isn't homeowners giving the middle finger to everybody else. The situation is more akin to existing residents fighting against future residents. Though whatever the situation is, pointing fingers at individual constituencies instead of trying to understand the problem holistically is not helping anything.

apsec112 10y ago
"It was renters living in the Mission who were (not incorrectly) terrified that new development means they will get evicted and displaced." New development as the cause of displacement is just outright misinformation. There has been very little development in the Mission: https://rationalconspiracy.com/2015/05/25/new-york-times-makes-up-facts-about-sf-housing/ https://rationalconspiracy.com/2015/05/25/new-york-times-mak... There is an extremely strong negative correlation between development and housing prices across cities: http://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/asking.prices.png http://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/asking.price... This is an excellent writeup by Jason Furman, chief economic adviser to President Obama, which explains in detail how land use restrictions make cities expensive (and cause other problems besides): https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20151120_barriers_shared_growth_land_use_regulation_and_economic_rents.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20...
- justincormack 10y ago
  People presumably think it is. As a visitor there now a lot of SF looks quite low density low rise, but a lot of the buildings are very pretty and the low rise wooden houses are part of the charm. Not sure how much less dense than Tokyo it is but maybe 4x? As a Brit I love the history, but there are probably parts that could be rebuilt. But there is a high risk that they won't be built as high density, the fact that the proposal includes affordable is because the builders will infill high end mostly. You need to allow rebuild of low density at eg 10x at scale to get a fall in prices. Builders don't want that.
lukeschlather 10y ago
Are you sure that only 30% of SF voters are homeowners? Maybe in presidential elections (with 70% turnout), but in all the other elections where turnout ranges from 30-50% I wouldn't be surprised if homeowners make up more than half of actual voters.
BurningFrog 10y ago
> It was renters living in the Mission who were (not incorrectly) terrified that new development means they will get evicted and displaced. This is such a bizarre idea. How exactly do renters get displaced by adding more housing?
- bagels 10y ago
  Because the actual building they live in gets demolished to build another building. Or because the new building next door is filled with 'luxury' $5000/mo rents, which might drive the rent up in their building.
  - gorkemyurt 10y ago
    If someone is living in the mission there are only 3 options; 1) They own their house 2) They are renting but their unit is rent controlled 3) They are rich or have high paying jobs (and building more actually helps them) "Because the actual building they live in gets demolished to build another building" This happens very rarely, people will literally revolt before a rent controlled unit gets demolished in the mission So someone opposing more building in the mission falls into the first two categories and they are extremely selfish
    - mikeyouse 10y ago
      This happens all the time (#2), it's literally happening to me right now. Look at the map of Ellis and Owner Move-In evictions in SF. Thousands of people are being displaced.
      - gorkemyurt 10y ago
        154 Ellis Act evictions last year. I know its sucks but I wouldn't say it happens all the time http://sfist.com/2016/03/29/report_evictions_continue_to_increa.php http://sfist.com/2016/03/29/report_evictions_continue_to_inc...
        10y ago
TulliusCicero 10y ago
> Around 65% of the population in SF are renters. If it were simply homeowners vs renters, renters would win in a landslide. Yes, but many renters are covered by rent control, and thus immune to increasing market rents.
eevilspock 10y ago
> Around 65% of the population in SF are renters. We don't in practice have "1 person, 1 vote". Because of the influence of money in politics, the effective reality is somewhere in between "1 person, 1 vote" and "1 dollar, 1 vote". There are far more dollars on the property owning side.

by birken 10y ago

apsec112 10y ago

"It was renters living in the Mission who were (not incorrectly) terrified that new development means they will get evicted and displaced." New development as the cause of displacement is just outright misinformation. There has been very little development in the Mission: https://rationalconspiracy.com/2015/05/25/new-york-times-makes-up-facts-about-sf-housing/ https://rationalconspiracy.com/2015/05/25/new-york-times-mak... There is an extremely strong negative correlation between development and housing prices across cities: http://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/asking.prices.png http://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/asking.price... This is an excellent writeup by Jason Furman, chief economic adviser to President Obama, which explains in detail how land use restrictions make cities expensive (and cause other problems besides): https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20151120_barriers_shared_growth_land_use_regulation_and_economic_rents.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20...

justincormack 10y ago
People presumably think it is. As a visitor there now a lot of SF looks quite low density low rise, but a lot of the buildings are very pretty and the low rise wooden houses are part of the charm. Not sure how much less dense than Tokyo it is but maybe 4x? As a Brit I love the history, but there are probably parts that could be rebuilt. But there is a high risk that they won't be built as high density, the fact that the proposal includes affordable is because the builders will infill high end mostly. You need to allow rebuild of low density at eg 10x at scale to get a fall in prices. Builders don't want that.

lukeschlather 10y ago

Are you sure that only 30% of SF voters are homeowners? Maybe in presidential elections (with 70% turnout), but in all the other elections where turnout ranges from 30-50% I wouldn't be surprised if homeowners make up more than half of actual voters.

BurningFrog 10y ago

> It was renters living in the Mission who were (not incorrectly) terrified that new development means they will get evicted and displaced. This is such a bizarre idea. How exactly do renters get displaced by adding more housing?

bagels 10y ago
Because the actual building they live in gets demolished to build another building. Or because the new building next door is filled with 'luxury' $5000/mo rents, which might drive the rent up in their building.
- gorkemyurt 10y ago
  If someone is living in the mission there are only 3 options; 1) They own their house 2) They are renting but their unit is rent controlled 3) They are rich or have high paying jobs (and building more actually helps them) "Because the actual building they live in gets demolished to build another building" This happens very rarely, people will literally revolt before a rent controlled unit gets demolished in the mission So someone opposing more building in the mission falls into the first two categories and they are extremely selfish
  - mikeyouse 10y ago
    This happens all the time (#2), it's literally happening to me right now. Look at the map of Ellis and Owner Move-In evictions in SF. Thousands of people are being displaced.
    - gorkemyurt 10y ago
      154 Ellis Act evictions last year. I know its sucks but I wouldn't say it happens all the time http://sfist.com/2016/03/29/report_evictions_continue_to_increa.php http://sfist.com/2016/03/29/report_evictions_continue_to_inc...
      - 10y ago

TulliusCicero 10y ago

> Around 65% of the population in SF are renters. If it were simply homeowners vs renters, renters would win in a landslide. Yes, but many renters are covered by rent control, and thus immune to increasing market rents.

eevilspock 10y ago

> Around 65% of the population in SF are renters. We don't in practice have "1 person, 1 vote". Because of the influence of money in politics, the effective reality is somewhere in between "1 person, 1 vote" and "1 dollar, 1 vote". There are far more dollars on the property owning side.