11 ms·

In San Francisco, I think the real story is what YIMBYs are looking to do on the 2018 ballot: An initiative (https://yimbyaction.org/prop/ https://yimbyaction.o

by raldi 9y ago

In San Francisco, I think the real story is what YIMBYs are looking to do on the 2018 ballot: An initiative (https://yimbyaction.org/prop/ https://yimbyaction.org/prop/) to allow affordable housing and teacher housing to be built "by right" -- which is wonky terminology for "The architect will be told the rules (zoning, etc) in advance, and as long as they design something that complies with all of them, a permit will be issued easy peasy". Under current law, even if you abide by all the rules that were stated in advance, you still have to wait years and might be denied in the end anyway. The reason I think this is such a key move is that until now, the landlords and homeowners who reap all the benefits from the status quo have somehow been able to dupe the housing have-nots who suffer from it (low-income renters, etc) into thinking that blocking housing construction will somehow keep their rents low or stem evictions. But anyone who stands against this measure won't be able to pretend they're doing so in the interest of the less-fortunate. They'll have to admit that they're really just looking to protect their view / parking space / skyrocketing property values.

ProAm 9y ago
> the landlords and homeowners who reap all the benefits from the status quo have somehow been able to dupe the housing have-nots who suffer from it And by that you mean the people who worked and saved to invest in something wisely to have that take out from under them? I cannot stand people who think home owners and landlords as evil people just because people who come after them cannot have it easy. It was never easy for anyone. It's not the have and have not's, it's the market and hardwork, sure some people are born into wealth but most the time it's just hard work.
- raldi 9y ago
  When did I say they were evil? My point is that yes, they're acting in their own self-interest (which is fine), but crucially, they've somehow convinced the housing-have-nots that artificially restricting the supply of new housing is somehow in their interest, too. I think this proposition will break that spell, and in a democracy, when the housing-haves vote their self-interest, and the have-nots vote theirs, the latter will win in a landslide.
  - ProAm 9y ago
    It comes across like people complaining that there are no pensions anymore and its unfair.... If you don't like the circumstances whose fault is it for staying in those circumstances?? The bay is tiny land locked piece of land, its never going to be good/better. It's a bunch of smart people making poor decisions.
    - stale2002 9y ago
      It is the fault of the politicians for not changing the laws, and for us not pushing for these laws to be changed. But let's fix that. Let's do the right thing and get rid of these ridiculous barriers to entry for building affordable housing.
    - alsetmusic 9y ago
      > If you don't like the circumstances whose fault is it for staying in those circumstances?? Are you suggesting that I leave my home, my job, my social life, etc rather than trying to affect changes in policy?
      - ProAm 9y ago
        If its having such an abject effect on your life? Why would you stay? You obviously had the skills to put yourself into such a position, you have the skills to get yourself into a much better position.
        mcny 9y ago
        > If its having such an abject effect on your life? Why would you stay? You obviously had the skills to put yourself into such a position, you have the skills to get yourself into a much better position. Because we believe we can effect change. I don't want to screw anyone over but home prices MUST come down regardless of how many second and third mortgages go underwater. What can we do to get you to support new construction? https://youtu.be/dcbjWGj3jBk https://youtu.be/dcbjWGj3jBk
        rgbrenner 9y ago
- eganist 9y ago
  > the people who worked and saved to invest in something wisely to have that take out from under them Sounds like the regulatory environment was an investment risk that wasn't taken into account. Persistence in regulations isn't some sort of right. Laws change all the time. Any investment made without considering the risk of the anti-NIMBY movement is no different from any other un-diligenced investment -- foolish. Holding an asset and concerned about the risk of diminishing property values in the face of shifting regulations? Unload. You'd do the same if you're seeing a company where you're Long run into potentially difficult headwinds.
- AlexandrB 9y ago
  > And by that you mean the people who worked and saved to invest in something wisely to have that take out from under them? How is dumping your savings into a single asset "wise investment"? The idea that housing should be a good investment is ludicrous on its face when you consider its potential volatility, constant upkeep, and lack of liquidity. I'm not sure why it continues to be promoted, and I think people should be disabused of it. Not only so they make better investment decisions, but so that housing speculation is less of driving force in real estate costs. What you're suggesting is that we allow putting barriers to new development to artificially keep this asset class valuable for its owners. Why does this make sense for housing but not for stocks or mutual funds?
  - ProAm 9y ago
    >I'm not sure why it continues to be promoted, and I think people should be disabused of it. Same goes for any IPO, or any investment in a startup, etc... Or is it? Im advocating not changing the game because the new players find the rules unfair.
    - rgbrenner 9y ago
      If housing is a business like every other, then why can't the rules change? The rules change for other businesses all the time: from tax changes; new laws; new technology; changes in interest rates; investment climate; etc. The rules are always changing, and businesses have to adapt. Why would housing be immune from change? You say it's all hard work.. then why be afraid of opening the market to more competition? They can put in some hard work at maintaining their position... like every other business in existence.
    - Haydos585x2 9y ago
      I think you've missed his point a bit. If I invested in a cigarette company and then a state decides that smoking can't happen within 5 meters of an eating area and this will affect cigarette sales I don't have a right to stop this law just because my investment might be hurt. Same with Herbalife, it's considered a pyramid scheme and a scam by many people. Maybe one day the US government says they have to shut down because some new law passses targeting them. In my world, I don't think they should be allowed to stay open just because some investors might be hurt. Property carries a risk just like any other investment and just because property was scarce at one point doesn't mean it needs to be forever. If the bay continues to have skyrocketing rents and no construction then eventually people will leave and the owner's investments will go to shit anyway.
- RickS 9y ago
  > it was never easy for anyone Are you familiar with the property tax structure in San Francisco? It's wacky in a way that causes old homeowners to have vastly different rates from new homeowners, in a way that is frankly ridiculous. It is vastly easier (more affordable) for existing landowners. The OPs bit that you quoted is accurate. The laws in the bay area surrounding taxation, eviction, and construction significantly disadvantage anyone that isn't generationally entrenched. We're not talking about stealing people's land via eminent domain or anything similarly draconian... old owners and new owners are not on a financially level playing field, and that should change. Even a cursory amount of research should leave you with the impression that bay area housing is not regulated in a way that allows normal market forces to play out, so saying "it's the market and hard work" is disingenuous.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- umanwizard 9y ago
  Nobody, on any side of the debate, is advocating that people who own houses have their homes taken away.
  - Spivak 9y ago
    Just the approval of housing developments that radically changes their neighborhood and communuty. Good thing those things don't influence a person's housing choices or property values.
    - raldi 9y ago
      The lack of new housing is radically changing the neighborhood and community. Neighborhood and community come from people, not buildings.
    - closeparen 9y ago
      How do you think it got there in the first place?
- pmoriarty 9y ago
  "I cannot stand people who think home owners and landlords as evil people just because people who come after them cannot have it easy." They're not evil, they're just selfish, and making life harder and more expensive for the rest of us.
  - Spivak 9y ago
    A person selling a good is protective of the value of the good they're selling. Selfish bastards. If I'm renting high-end apartments why would I want developments that make them or the area less attractive?
    - dcosson 9y ago
      You don't want them, but what you want is entirely irrelevant. This isn't a discussion about what existing landlords do with their own property, it's about not letting them block the new housing that they have absolutely no stake in and that benefits everyone else in the city.
      - Spivak 9y ago
        If it really benefited everyone we wouldn't be having this discussion and if landlords had nothing at stake they wouldn't be weighing in on the debate. Just because someone doesn't have a financial stake in the literal plot of land doesn't mean that they aren't affected by new developments. Mediating disputes involving negative externalities is exactly the government's job.
        dcosson 9y ago
        Except that it does benefit everyone, which is why the Yimby movement is gaining traction at the rate it is. It just wasn't as clear-cut and financially painful to the average person until a few years ago which is why it took so long to correct.
        ProAm 9y ago
- jlarocco 9y ago
  It's pretty ironic to throw around words like "invest", "market", and "hardwork" while making an argument that the government should prohibit new development to protect your property value.
  - Spivak 9y ago
    Is it really that surprising that the value of a house is more than the literal plot of land it sits on? The neighborhood, the community, public spaces, small businesses, the school district, transportation options.
    - kelnos 9y ago
      Yes, and all of these things change. You didn't buy the right to freeze time.
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  > And by that you mean the people who worked and saved to invest in something wisely to have that take out from under them? If you purchased real estate on the understanding that no new buildings would ever be built near your land, you did not invest wisely, and it's no one's responsibility to protect you from the consequences of your lack of foresight.
flukus 9y ago
> Under current law, even if you abide by all the rules that were stated in advance, you still have to wait years and might be denied in the end anyway. The reverse would be nice as well and would remove a lot of corruption at the local level.
stanmancan 9y ago
They'll have to admit that they're really just looking to protect their view I dunno, if I bought the most expensive thing I'll ever buy in my life and part of what I paid for was a good view, I'd be pretty choked if someone put a big building up and took that away.
- someguydave 9y ago
  It's a fair point, which is why it's probably a good idea to try to work it out with the property owner rather that appeal to the government to put him in a vice.
  - bri3d 9y ago
    In dense urban areas, increasingly the property owner is a complex series of foreign tax shelters that probably doesn't even resolve to a real human being (or group of them) in any human-discoverable way.
- raldi 9y ago
  Your comment begins, “I dunno”, but nothing that follows contradicts anything I said.
- RHSeeger 9y ago
  I guess part of the counter argument is that you did not, in fact, pay for a good view. You may have thought you paid for a good view, and the person who sold to you may have told you you were getting a good view... but, since you didn't buy the land between you and what you were viewing, you weren't buying that view. You were just lucky to get it.
  - sliverstorm 9y ago
    Similarly, you might have thought you were getting clean air... You may not have legal authority over everything that happens, but there's more to the land you purchase, than the dirt within the lines. Otherwise, why does anyone pay extra for a house near a school, or in a happening city? They didn't buy the school or the city, after all.
cobookman 9y ago
Why limit to affordable & teacher housing. Seems unfair and might not effect the current cost of living for those getting market rate housing....aka the tax payers.
- azernik 9y ago
  Because if you're putting something on the ballot, you've got to make the beneficiaries extra-sympathetic. Hopefully this will be extended after the initial proposition passes.
- raldi 9y ago
  Because it would allow the opposition to trick housing-have-nots into opposing it, under the false rhetoric of, “You’re just looking for a blank check to build luxury bro frathouse towers for tech millionaires”.
- twblalock 9y ago
  If rational arguments about market-rate housing worked on the San Francisco electorate, the bad housing situation would never have developed there.
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  It seems like a lot of the problem is that, if you tell developers that they can build any housing they want, they'll mostly build high-end apartments because they can make more money off those. If you want affordable housing to exist in sufficient quantity, you have to incentivize it in some way.
  - olympus 9y ago
    You can pass rent controls as a separate measure. But I think adding high-end apartments will still open up some of the regular apartments and lower prices.
  - ProblemFactory 9y ago
    High-end apartments is still more housing. People moving into the high-end apartments will leave some other, perhaps cheaper apartments free.
smsm42 9y ago
> The architect will be told the rules (zoning, etc) in advance, and as long as they design something that complies with all of them, a permit will be issued easy peasy" This should be always the case, it is very sad one has to struggle and take extraordinary measures to make it so.

by raldi 9y ago

ProAm 9y ago

> the landlords and homeowners who reap all the benefits from the status quo have somehow been able to dupe the housing have-nots who suffer from it And by that you mean the people who worked and saved to invest in something wisely to have that take out from under them? I cannot stand people who think home owners and landlords as evil people just because people who come after them cannot have it easy. It was never easy for anyone. It's not the have and have not's, it's the market and hardwork, sure some people are born into wealth but most the time it's just hard work.

raldi 9y ago
When did I say they were evil? My point is that yes, they're acting in their own self-interest (which is fine), but crucially, they've somehow convinced the housing-have-nots that artificially restricting the supply of new housing is somehow in their interest, too. I think this proposition will break that spell, and in a democracy, when the housing-haves vote their self-interest, and the have-nots vote theirs, the latter will win in a landslide.
- ProAm 9y ago
  It comes across like people complaining that there are no pensions anymore and its unfair.... If you don't like the circumstances whose fault is it for staying in those circumstances?? The bay is tiny land locked piece of land, its never going to be good/better. It's a bunch of smart people making poor decisions.
  - stale2002 9y ago
    It is the fault of the politicians for not changing the laws, and for us not pushing for these laws to be changed. But let's fix that. Let's do the right thing and get rid of these ridiculous barriers to entry for building affordable housing.
  - alsetmusic 9y ago
    > If you don't like the circumstances whose fault is it for staying in those circumstances?? Are you suggesting that I leave my home, my job, my social life, etc rather than trying to affect changes in policy?
    - ProAm 9y ago
      If its having such an abject effect on your life? Why would you stay? You obviously had the skills to put yourself into such a position, you have the skills to get yourself into a much better position.
      - mcny 9y ago
        > If its having such an abject effect on your life? Why would you stay? You obviously had the skills to put yourself into such a position, you have the skills to get yourself into a much better position. Because we believe we can effect change. I don't want to screw anyone over but home prices MUST come down regardless of how many second and third mortgages go underwater. What can we do to get you to support new construction? https://youtu.be/dcbjWGj3jBk https://youtu.be/dcbjWGj3jBk
      - rgbrenner 9y ago
eganist 9y ago
> the people who worked and saved to invest in something wisely to have that take out from under them Sounds like the regulatory environment was an investment risk that wasn't taken into account. Persistence in regulations isn't some sort of right. Laws change all the time. Any investment made without considering the risk of the anti-NIMBY movement is no different from any other un-diligenced investment -- foolish. Holding an asset and concerned about the risk of diminishing property values in the face of shifting regulations? Unload. You'd do the same if you're seeing a company where you're Long run into potentially difficult headwinds.
AlexandrB 9y ago
> And by that you mean the people who worked and saved to invest in something wisely to have that take out from under them? How is dumping your savings into a single asset "wise investment"? The idea that housing should be a good investment is ludicrous on its face when you consider its potential volatility, constant upkeep, and lack of liquidity. I'm not sure why it continues to be promoted, and I think people should be disabused of it. Not only so they make better investment decisions, but so that housing speculation is less of driving force in real estate costs. What you're suggesting is that we allow putting barriers to new development to artificially keep this asset class valuable for its owners. Why does this make sense for housing but not for stocks or mutual funds?
- ProAm 9y ago
  >I'm not sure why it continues to be promoted, and I think people should be disabused of it. Same goes for any IPO, or any investment in a startup, etc... Or is it? Im advocating not changing the game because the new players find the rules unfair.
  - rgbrenner 9y ago
    If housing is a business like every other, then why can't the rules change? The rules change for other businesses all the time: from tax changes; new laws; new technology; changes in interest rates; investment climate; etc. The rules are always changing, and businesses have to adapt. Why would housing be immune from change? You say it's all hard work.. then why be afraid of opening the market to more competition? They can put in some hard work at maintaining their position... like every other business in existence.
  - Haydos585x2 9y ago
    I think you've missed his point a bit. If I invested in a cigarette company and then a state decides that smoking can't happen within 5 meters of an eating area and this will affect cigarette sales I don't have a right to stop this law just because my investment might be hurt. Same with Herbalife, it's considered a pyramid scheme and a scam by many people. Maybe one day the US government says they have to shut down because some new law passses targeting them. In my world, I don't think they should be allowed to stay open just because some investors might be hurt. Property carries a risk just like any other investment and just because property was scarce at one point doesn't mean it needs to be forever. If the bay continues to have skyrocketing rents and no construction then eventually people will leave and the owner's investments will go to shit anyway.
RickS 9y ago
> it was never easy for anyone Are you familiar with the property tax structure in San Francisco? It's wacky in a way that causes old homeowners to have vastly different rates from new homeowners, in a way that is frankly ridiculous. It is vastly easier (more affordable) for existing landowners. The OPs bit that you quoted is accurate. The laws in the bay area surrounding taxation, eviction, and construction significantly disadvantage anyone that isn't generationally entrenched. We're not talking about stealing people's land via eminent domain or anything similarly draconian... old owners and new owners are not on a financially level playing field, and that should change. Even a cursory amount of research should leave you with the impression that bay area housing is not regulated in a way that allows normal market forces to play out, so saying "it's the market and hard work" is disingenuous.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
umanwizard 9y ago
Nobody, on any side of the debate, is advocating that people who own houses have their homes taken away.
- Spivak 9y ago
  Just the approval of housing developments that radically changes their neighborhood and communuty. Good thing those things don't influence a person's housing choices or property values.
  - raldi 9y ago
    The lack of new housing is radically changing the neighborhood and community. Neighborhood and community come from people, not buildings.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    How do you think it got there in the first place?
pmoriarty 9y ago
"I cannot stand people who think home owners and landlords as evil people just because people who come after them cannot have it easy." They're not evil, they're just selfish, and making life harder and more expensive for the rest of us.
- Spivak 9y ago
  A person selling a good is protective of the value of the good they're selling. Selfish bastards. If I'm renting high-end apartments why would I want developments that make them or the area less attractive?
  - dcosson 9y ago
    You don't want them, but what you want is entirely irrelevant. This isn't a discussion about what existing landlords do with their own property, it's about not letting them block the new housing that they have absolutely no stake in and that benefits everyone else in the city.
    - Spivak 9y ago
      If it really benefited everyone we wouldn't be having this discussion and if landlords had nothing at stake they wouldn't be weighing in on the debate. Just because someone doesn't have a financial stake in the literal plot of land doesn't mean that they aren't affected by new developments. Mediating disputes involving negative externalities is exactly the government's job.
      - dcosson 9y ago
        Except that it does benefit everyone, which is why the Yimby movement is gaining traction at the rate it is. It just wasn't as clear-cut and financially painful to the average person until a few years ago which is why it took so long to correct.
        ProAm 9y ago
jlarocco 9y ago
It's pretty ironic to throw around words like "invest", "market", and "hardwork" while making an argument that the government should prohibit new development to protect your property value.
- Spivak 9y ago
  Is it really that surprising that the value of a house is more than the literal plot of land it sits on? The neighborhood, the community, public spaces, small businesses, the school district, transportation options.
  - kelnos 9y ago
    Yes, and all of these things change. You didn't buy the right to freeze time.
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
> And by that you mean the people who worked and saved to invest in something wisely to have that take out from under them? If you purchased real estate on the understanding that no new buildings would ever be built near your land, you did not invest wisely, and it's no one's responsibility to protect you from the consequences of your lack of foresight.

flukus 9y ago

> Under current law, even if you abide by all the rules that were stated in advance, you still have to wait years and might be denied in the end anyway. The reverse would be nice as well and would remove a lot of corruption at the local level.

stanmancan 9y ago

They'll have to admit that they're really just looking to protect their view I dunno, if I bought the most expensive thing I'll ever buy in my life and part of what I paid for was a good view, I'd be pretty choked if someone put a big building up and took that away.

someguydave 9y ago
It's a fair point, which is why it's probably a good idea to try to work it out with the property owner rather that appeal to the government to put him in a vice.
- bri3d 9y ago
  In dense urban areas, increasingly the property owner is a complex series of foreign tax shelters that probably doesn't even resolve to a real human being (or group of them) in any human-discoverable way.
raldi 9y ago
Your comment begins, “I dunno”, but nothing that follows contradicts anything I said.
RHSeeger 9y ago
I guess part of the counter argument is that you did not, in fact, pay for a good view. You may have thought you paid for a good view, and the person who sold to you may have told you you were getting a good view... but, since you didn't buy the land between you and what you were viewing, you weren't buying that view. You were just lucky to get it.
- sliverstorm 9y ago
  Similarly, you might have thought you were getting clean air... You may not have legal authority over everything that happens, but there's more to the land you purchase, than the dirt within the lines. Otherwise, why does anyone pay extra for a house near a school, or in a happening city? They didn't buy the school or the city, after all.

cobookman 9y ago

Why limit to affordable & teacher housing. Seems unfair and might not effect the current cost of living for those getting market rate housing....aka the tax payers.

azernik 9y ago
Because if you're putting something on the ballot, you've got to make the beneficiaries extra-sympathetic. Hopefully this will be extended after the initial proposition passes.
raldi 9y ago
Because it would allow the opposition to trick housing-have-nots into opposing it, under the false rhetoric of, “You’re just looking for a blank check to build luxury bro frathouse towers for tech millionaires”.
twblalock 9y ago
If rational arguments about market-rate housing worked on the San Francisco electorate, the bad housing situation would never have developed there.
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
It seems like a lot of the problem is that, if you tell developers that they can build any housing they want, they'll mostly build high-end apartments because they can make more money off those. If you want affordable housing to exist in sufficient quantity, you have to incentivize it in some way.
- olympus 9y ago
  You can pass rent controls as a separate measure. But I think adding high-end apartments will still open up some of the regular apartments and lower prices.
- ProblemFactory 9y ago
  High-end apartments is still more housing. People moving into the high-end apartments will leave some other, perhaps cheaper apartments free.

smsm42 9y ago

> The architect will be told the rules (zoning, etc) in advance, and as long as they design something that complies with all of them, a permit will be issued easy peasy" This should be always the case, it is very sad one has to struggle and take extraordinary measures to make it so.