4 ms·

> Pretty frustrating sentiment. This is why we have a housing crisis in the bay area, NIMBYism. It's very frustrating indeed when you lived all our life in tha

by rdtsc 10y ago

> Pretty frustrating sentiment. This is why we have a housing crisis in the bay area, NIMBYism. It's very frustrating indeed when you lived all our life in that apartment, your pension is minimal just enough to scrape by, and some developer (probably corrupt, in bed with the city mayor) comes and kicks you out so they can build a fancy apartment building to sell it to some multi-millionaire. I am sure it' s just like the bay area :-)

scythe 10y ago
In theory, if the owner wants to expand their building, there are schemes where the developer will compensate the tenants by offering them units in the new building at the old prices, or sometimes units elsewhere. San Francisco could potentially implement this by making it possible for the owner of a building to voluntarily convert a non-rent-controlled unit to a rent-controlled unit, allowing old buildings to be replaced by offering the tenants converted units in other buildings (the total # of units on the market still increases). Of course nobody likes to be asked to move, but with guarantees on the price and a reasonable definition of "equivalent unit" it's a whole lot better than the Ellis Act conversions we're used to seeing.
nikanj 10y ago
Say what you want about the soviet model, but with an ample, cheap supply of housing stock you could just buy a new flat from the house next door
- varjag 10y ago
  No, you couldn't buy anything really. There was tremendous housing shortage throughout all USSR existence, and the apartments were distributed. There were some building "cooperatives", but they were massively subsidized too, with the spots rationed and queued for many years ahead.
- gozur88 10y ago
  More like you could get on a list that would have you in another apartment eventually (if you lived that long). In practical terms it's no different from "affordable housing" in the US.

by rdtsc 10y ago

scythe 10y ago

In theory, if the owner wants to expand their building, there are schemes where the developer will compensate the tenants by offering them units in the new building at the old prices, or sometimes units elsewhere. San Francisco could potentially implement this by making it possible for the owner of a building to voluntarily convert a non-rent-controlled unit to a rent-controlled unit, allowing old buildings to be replaced by offering the tenants converted units in other buildings (the total # of units on the market still increases). Of course nobody likes to be asked to move, but with guarantees on the price and a reasonable definition of "equivalent unit" it's a whole lot better than the Ellis Act conversions we're used to seeing.

nikanj 10y ago

Say what you want about the soviet model, but with an ample, cheap supply of housing stock you could just buy a new flat from the house next door

varjag 10y ago
No, you couldn't buy anything really. There was tremendous housing shortage throughout all USSR existence, and the apartments were distributed. There were some building "cooperatives", but they were massively subsidized too, with the spots rationed and queued for many years ahead.
gozur88 10y ago
More like you could get on a list that would have you in another apartment eventually (if you lived that long). In practical terms it's no different from "affordable housing" in the US.