4 ms·

Political resistance to new housing also comes, paradoxically, from low-income people too in San Francisco. Obstructionists use the term 'Affordable Housing' t

Political resistance to new housing also comes, paradoxically, from low-income people too in San Francisco. Obstructionists use the term 'Affordable Housing' to rebrand subsidized housing [Market rate housing is also rebranded 'Luxury Housing']. So when measures are proposed in SF, groups can't weather the political backlash of being against subsidized housing because they will be branded as "Anti Affordable Housing"!! ["Who in their right mind would be against that!?"] Normally the subsidy comes from amortizing the cost of building the development/homes over fewer and fewer market rate owners until the breaking point where it's not profitable [Don't forget, in SF any profit a developer makes in housing is 'evil'] for a housing developer to build. In the Mission District, it's common to have housing development stalled because it doesn't have enough subsidized housing to pass through the atypically excessive 'planning' process. Even when The City buys a lot to build housing it sits, stalled for years because of bureaucratic waste and inefficiency[1]. Effectively what's happened is that rent control has sheltered many residents from the market rate of housing to a point where they are effectively locked into staying in their current rental and will never be able to afford to move to a new rental or ever buy a house. Given that they have no hope of ever being able to afford market rate housing and the government of San Francisco is has the power obstruct planning process for a myriad of reasons [that are surreptitiously used to exercise backhanded influence rather than judicial assessment] they have every incentive to resist everything that's not subsidized. Comically to the point where obstructionists tried to literally block all housing, lest it be 100% subsidized.[2] [1]http://missionlocal.org/2016/08/city-cites-its-own-land-for-blight-gives-self-15-days-to-fix/ http://missionlocal.org/2016/08/city-cites-its-own-land-for-... [2]https://ballotpedia.org/City_of_San_Francisco_Mission_District_Housing_Moratorium_Initiative,_Proposition_I_(November_2015) https://ballotpedia.org/City_of_San_Francisco_Mission_Distri...

twblalock 10y ago
SF is one of the few cities where the poorest and the richest agree on housing policy. It's a very unusual situation.
- Tiktaalik 10y ago
  SF is not special or unique at all and the rich and poor do not agree on housing policy. Both groups are looking out for their immediate near term interests. The rich want to maintain their low density single family neighbourhoods exactly as they were when they bought into them. The poor simply want to keep their current home and have it not torn down, as every other apartment is almost certain to be dramatically more expensive to rent than their current one. If the city suggested building mid rise buildings with a percentage of below market units in leafy rich neighbourhoods far from low income areas you'd see that low income persons would be quite happy about this development. The rich wouldn't be. Of course this is almost never the case. Rich homeowners vote in greater numbers and have the time and capacity to fight back, and so what we see is that the areas first in line for redevelopment are almost always low income areas (ie. The Mission) while rich ultra low density areas are left untouched.
  - twblalock 10y ago
    Both the rich and the poor oppose almost all new construction. So yeah, they agree. > If the city suggested building mid rise buildings with a percentage of below market units in leafy rich neighbourhoods far from low income areas you'd see that low income persons would be quite happy about this development. The rich wouldn't be. I don't believe that. There are many in SF who oppose all new construction, and many others who want 100% of new construction to be subsidized housing.
    - Tiktaalik 10y ago
      The claim that low income persons would oppose new low income housing in rich areas that they do not live in is not believable and I'd love to see the evidence of that. There is none. People need to stop trying to make the housing issue a one dimensional fight of pro-housing vs anti-housing. It's dramatically more complex than that.

twblalock 10y ago

SF is one of the few cities where the poorest and the richest agree on housing policy. It's a very unusual situation.

Tiktaalik 10y ago
SF is not special or unique at all and the rich and poor do not agree on housing policy. Both groups are looking out for their immediate near term interests. The rich want to maintain their low density single family neighbourhoods exactly as they were when they bought into them. The poor simply want to keep their current home and have it not torn down, as every other apartment is almost certain to be dramatically more expensive to rent than their current one. If the city suggested building mid rise buildings with a percentage of below market units in leafy rich neighbourhoods far from low income areas you'd see that low income persons would be quite happy about this development. The rich wouldn't be. Of course this is almost never the case. Rich homeowners vote in greater numbers and have the time and capacity to fight back, and so what we see is that the areas first in line for redevelopment are almost always low income areas (ie. The Mission) while rich ultra low density areas are left untouched.
- twblalock 10y ago
  Both the rich and the poor oppose almost all new construction. So yeah, they agree. > If the city suggested building mid rise buildings with a percentage of below market units in leafy rich neighbourhoods far from low income areas you'd see that low income persons would be quite happy about this development. The rich wouldn't be. I don't believe that. There are many in SF who oppose all new construction, and many others who want 100% of new construction to be subsidized housing.
  - Tiktaalik 10y ago
    The claim that low income persons would oppose new low income housing in rich areas that they do not live in is not believable and I'd love to see the evidence of that. There is none. People need to stop trying to make the housing issue a one dimensional fight of pro-housing vs anti-housing. It's dramatically more complex than that.