3 ms·

You're not talking about rooted people in the same way I am... I'm talking about homeowners, you're talking about landlords who charge rent. I'm talking about

You're not talking about rooted people in the same way I am... I'm talking about homeowners, you're talking about landlords who charge rent. I'm talking about people who actually live in the homes they own and have to deal with homelessness in their neighborhood. You're talking about landlords who own lots of property in SF but go home to their mansions in Sausalito or Palo Alto. My point exactly agrees with you. SF needs less landlords and more homeowners.

stale2002 10y ago
The home owners are the ones stopping new houses from being built. Homeowners don't want their property values to go down, and want the city to be locked in time, never changing and never growing. They are the ones stopping new houses from being built.
- saynsedit 10y ago
  Are you saying that SF homeowners want homeless people walking their streets? If their intention is to increase property value, as you say, why would they want that? Seems to me like the people who win the most by limiting housing are the landlords who can collect higher rent through scarce supply. Long term homeowners probably don't care much about yearly changes in their homes worth.
  - stale2002 10y ago
    SF homeowners want their neighborhood to stay locked in time forever and pretend nothing will ever change. They want to protect the "character" of the neighborhood, by preventing all high rises and anything that isn't a single family townhouse. They'd probably be fine with more housing being built 'somewhere else' for the homeless. But ya know, definitely not in THEIR backyard. Developers (aka landlords) aren't the ones protesting new building being built. This is because they would love to be able to build more. Even though they would make less money per apartment, there is so much demand for houses, that the massive amount of new development would make up for it. There is only so many landlords out there. Their vote isn't particularly significant. But there are a LOT of NIMBY homeowners.
    - saynsedit 10y ago
      I think you have completed misinterpreted my point to fit your preexisting bias. My point is that homelessness severity in any given area is correlated with renter density. Whatever homeowners you think are blocking new developments, think about the homelessness in their specific area. Is it severe? Think about the areas in SF that have the most severe homelessness, how many homeowners do you think live in that area? On the causes of homelessness... I don't think it's due to scarce housing. Even if there were more housing available, I doubt a homeless person could start paying for it. Getting out of homelessness is a more complex issue.

stale2002 10y ago

The home owners are the ones stopping new houses from being built. Homeowners don't want their property values to go down, and want the city to be locked in time, never changing and never growing. They are the ones stopping new houses from being built.

saynsedit 10y ago
Are you saying that SF homeowners want homeless people walking their streets? If their intention is to increase property value, as you say, why would they want that? Seems to me like the people who win the most by limiting housing are the landlords who can collect higher rent through scarce supply. Long term homeowners probably don't care much about yearly changes in their homes worth.
- stale2002 10y ago
  SF homeowners want their neighborhood to stay locked in time forever and pretend nothing will ever change. They want to protect the "character" of the neighborhood, by preventing all high rises and anything that isn't a single family townhouse. They'd probably be fine with more housing being built 'somewhere else' for the homeless. But ya know, definitely not in THEIR backyard. Developers (aka landlords) aren't the ones protesting new building being built. This is because they would love to be able to build more. Even though they would make less money per apartment, there is so much demand for houses, that the massive amount of new development would make up for it. There is only so many landlords out there. Their vote isn't particularly significant. But there are a LOT of NIMBY homeowners.
  - saynsedit 10y ago
    I think you have completed misinterpreted my point to fit your preexisting bias. My point is that homelessness severity in any given area is correlated with renter density. Whatever homeowners you think are blocking new developments, think about the homelessness in their specific area. Is it severe? Think about the areas in SF that have the most severe homelessness, how many homeowners do you think live in that area? On the causes of homelessness... I don't think it's due to scarce housing. Even if there were more housing available, I doubt a homeless person could start paying for it. Getting out of homelessness is a more complex issue.