5 ms·

If you live in the Mission district of San Francisco and want to get involved, come to the Mission YIMBY general meeting at the end of November. I'm one of the

by buss 9y ago

If you live in the Mission district of San Francisco and want to get involved, come to the Mission YIMBY general meeting at the end of November. I'm one of the organizers and we're looking to grow our membership base! https://www.facebook.com/events/771212863081381 https://www.facebook.com/events/771212863081381

rsync 9y ago
"If you live in the Mission district of San Francisco and want to get involved, come to the Mission YIMBY general meeting at the end of November." I am genuinely interested in what it means to be a Mission district YIMBY. The recent history of housing politics in the Mission have pitted left-liberal progressives against housing development on the assumption that: new development will be market rate, this will bring "tech workers" and gentrification, ergo: new housing will (paradoxically) force more existing mission residents out of housing. So it has been left-liberal, progressive, tenants-rights NIMBYs vs. gentrifying developers (and sometimes, very explicitly, "tech-bus-riders")[1][2][3]. BUT, the YIMBY movement in general seems to present itself as a left-liberal, progressive response to incumbent property owners. Given that context, what kind of reception does "Mission YIMBY" receive and where does it fall in the politics of what is the Mission district in 2017 ? [1] https://48hills.org/2015/02/11/teachers-protested-google-buses/ https://48hills.org/2015/02/11/teachers-protested-google-bus... [2] https://48hills.org/2016/01/25/problem-google-bus-program/ https://48hills.org/2016/01/25/problem-google-bus-program/ [3] https://48hills.org/2015/04/24/thebattle-over-sf-bus-stops/ https://48hills.org/2015/04/24/thebattle-over-sf-bus-stops/
- nshepperd 9y ago
  Who says there can only be one left-liberal progressive side? Let alone only one that claims to be left-liberal progressive?
- santaclaus 9y ago
  Most of the opposition to housing I've seen in the Mission has been to infill. Look at the controversy over development at the 16th street mission BART station. This would be dense housing in an urban core literally on top of public transit. It would displace a... Burger King. I find it hard to swallow that Burger King is a core component of a sustainable, progressive urban landscape, while high density housing with easy access to public transit is not.
  - solatic 9y ago
    Anti-gentrification isn't the same thing as xenophobia. It's not a fear of new (or even rich) people entering the neighborhood, it's the fear of even higher property values raising property taxes and rents for existing owners and renters, respectively. The problem is that it's a virtual impossibility to build enough housing throughout the Bay Area in a short enough amount of time as to have a meaningful decrease in property values in every neighborhood, thus preventing gentrification. So in the real world, with limited yearly construction, developers' aims will be to build upmarket housing. You can't really work around this without dictating to developers what they can and cannot build. SF tried to do that with community approvals being a way for the community to de facto dictate to developers what they can and cannot build, but it's clearly not working.
    - dcosson 9y ago
      > So in the real world, with limited yearly construction, developers' aims will be to build upmarket housing. I don't understand the line of thinking where this itself is a problem. Who cares what the new housing is, what matters is the total supply of housing. If we build new affordable housing, then lower-middle-class people will move there and upper-middle-class people will move to the older buildings. If we build new upmarket housing, then upper middle class people move there and lower middle class people stay in existing housing. The problem with building only affordable housing, is that 1. it doesn't seem like you could ever build enough because as soon as you do you create pressure for more people who qualify to move to the city, and 2. there will always be a step function where someone just barely doesn't qualify for affordable housing but can't afford market-rate housing because you've been restricting the supply. Building a lot of both is the only reasonable way forward.
      - Mz 9y ago
        Yes, building more helps everyone, even if you build upscale housing. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/12/the-poor-are-better-off-when-we-build-more-housing-for-the-rich/?utm_term=.7c9af096aa8a https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/12/the-p... Though I think we do need to find ways to make more affordable housing available as well. http://projectsro.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-two-percent-solution.html http://projectsro.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-two-percent-solut...
- tmh79 9y ago
  If you come to the meeting, we'd be happy to talk more about these things in detail! Politics in SF is very complicated and fraught with strange alliances.

by buss 9y ago

rsync 9y ago

"If you live in the Mission district of San Francisco and want to get involved, come to the Mission YIMBY general meeting at the end of November." I am genuinely interested in what it means to be a Mission district YIMBY. The recent history of housing politics in the Mission have pitted left-liberal progressives against housing development on the assumption that: new development will be market rate, this will bring "tech workers" and gentrification, ergo: new housing will (paradoxically) force more existing mission residents out of housing. So it has been left-liberal, progressive, tenants-rights NIMBYs vs. gentrifying developers (and sometimes, very explicitly, "tech-bus-riders")[1][2][3]. BUT, the YIMBY movement in general seems to present itself as a left-liberal, progressive response to incumbent property owners. Given that context, what kind of reception does "Mission YIMBY" receive and where does it fall in the politics of what is the Mission district in 2017 ? [1] https://48hills.org/2015/02/11/teachers-protested-google-buses/ https://48hills.org/2015/02/11/teachers-protested-google-bus... [2] https://48hills.org/2016/01/25/problem-google-bus-program/ https://48hills.org/2016/01/25/problem-google-bus-program/ [3] https://48hills.org/2015/04/24/thebattle-over-sf-bus-stops/ https://48hills.org/2015/04/24/thebattle-over-sf-bus-stops/

nshepperd 9y ago
Who says there can only be one left-liberal progressive side? Let alone only one that claims to be left-liberal progressive?
santaclaus 9y ago
Most of the opposition to housing I've seen in the Mission has been to infill. Look at the controversy over development at the 16th street mission BART station. This would be dense housing in an urban core literally on top of public transit. It would displace a... Burger King. I find it hard to swallow that Burger King is a core component of a sustainable, progressive urban landscape, while high density housing with easy access to public transit is not.
- solatic 9y ago
  Anti-gentrification isn't the same thing as xenophobia. It's not a fear of new (or even rich) people entering the neighborhood, it's the fear of even higher property values raising property taxes and rents for existing owners and renters, respectively. The problem is that it's a virtual impossibility to build enough housing throughout the Bay Area in a short enough amount of time as to have a meaningful decrease in property values in every neighborhood, thus preventing gentrification. So in the real world, with limited yearly construction, developers' aims will be to build upmarket housing. You can't really work around this without dictating to developers what they can and cannot build. SF tried to do that with community approvals being a way for the community to de facto dictate to developers what they can and cannot build, but it's clearly not working.
  - dcosson 9y ago
    > So in the real world, with limited yearly construction, developers' aims will be to build upmarket housing. I don't understand the line of thinking where this itself is a problem. Who cares what the new housing is, what matters is the total supply of housing. If we build new affordable housing, then lower-middle-class people will move there and upper-middle-class people will move to the older buildings. If we build new upmarket housing, then upper middle class people move there and lower middle class people stay in existing housing. The problem with building only affordable housing, is that 1. it doesn't seem like you could ever build enough because as soon as you do you create pressure for more people who qualify to move to the city, and 2. there will always be a step function where someone just barely doesn't qualify for affordable housing but can't afford market-rate housing because you've been restricting the supply. Building a lot of both is the only reasonable way forward.
    - Mz 9y ago
      Yes, building more helps everyone, even if you build upscale housing. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/12/the-poor-are-better-off-when-we-build-more-housing-for-the-rich/?utm_term=.7c9af096aa8a https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/12/the-p... Though I think we do need to find ways to make more affordable housing available as well. http://projectsro.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-two-percent-solution.html http://projectsro.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-two-percent-solut...
tmh79 9y ago
If you come to the meeting, we'd be happy to talk more about these things in detail! Politics in SF is very complicated and fraught with strange alliances.