5 ms·

> Gee, I wonder why the incentives are all screwed up? Just a guess, but maybe it's all the douchebag millennials who programmatically remove other's choices.

anthonybullard 9y ago
Wait, are there millennials on the board of governors? Because they are the ones who have actually removed people's choices - i.e., the choice to build something on their property. Which is the true cause of individual renter's choice being whittled down. Apartments don't get built for free, nor do they get maintained for free. And because of rent control and unreasonable tenant protections, landlords - who either bought, built, or inherited these properties - have an incentive to not maintain properties inhabited by long time tenants and create an atmosphere that makes them want to leave. The ones that are able to do that are probably pocketing a lot of (economic) rents, while the ones who try to do the right thing by their tenants end up on a sinking financial ship. You can talk all you want about "millennials", but tech workers need a place to live. They make a lot of money - and largely put a lot of it in the local economy since many of them are at a stage of life where conspicuous consumption makes sense for them. But because of Local and state politics, not one city will let anyone build enough of it. So if someone can't build a 400 unit tower in the mission, guess what? They'll find a way to get occupy 400 single family homes. No one wins really. Except some longstanding homeowners that get an underfed windfall in home value without paying any increased property tax, some unscrupulous landlords, developers with political connections, and some grandstanding politicians. Meanwhile, tech people drawn from all over the world come here to be vilified as colonizers, low-income people are left in the streets or pushed to the farthest reaches of the Bay (or out of state completely), and principled landlords are left with a money hole they can't withstand.

anthonybullard 9y ago

Wait, are there millennials on the board of governors? Because they are the ones who have actually removed people's choices - i.e., the choice to build something on their property. Which is the true cause of individual renter's choice being whittled down. Apartments don't get built for free, nor do they get maintained for free. And because of rent control and unreasonable tenant protections, landlords - who either bought, built, or inherited these properties - have an incentive to not maintain properties inhabited by long time tenants and create an atmosphere that makes them want to leave. The ones that are able to do that are probably pocketing a lot of (economic) rents, while the ones who try to do the right thing by their tenants end up on a sinking financial ship. You can talk all you want about "millennials", but tech workers need a place to live. They make a lot of money - and largely put a lot of it in the local economy since many of them are at a stage of life where conspicuous consumption makes sense for them. But because of Local and state politics, not one city will let anyone build enough of it. So if someone can't build a 400 unit tower in the mission, guess what? They'll find a way to get occupy 400 single family homes. No one wins really. Except some longstanding homeowners that get an underfed windfall in home value without paying any increased property tax, some unscrupulous landlords, developers with political connections, and some grandstanding politicians. Meanwhile, tech people drawn from all over the world come here to be vilified as colonizers, low-income people are left in the streets or pushed to the farthest reaches of the Bay (or out of state completely), and principled landlords are left with a money hole they can't withstand.