6 ms·

they have a problem with low-income housing activists more so than actual low income people. check the 2nd to last graph on this page: http://www.ppic.org/publ

they have a problem with low-income housing activists more so than actual low income people. check the 2nd to last graph on this page: http://www.ppic.org/publication/californians-and-housing-affordability/ http://www.ppic.org/publication/californians-and-housing-aff...

abalone 8y ago
See, that's exactly what I mean. First, it's kind of condescending and dismissive, like low-income housing activists don't actually represent the populations they live with and fight for. Second, you're misinterpreting the graph. It just says renters want more housing. But if you scroll up you'll note the kind of housing "strong majorities favor": "affordable housing projects" -- not market rate. The debate here between YIMBYs and the low-income housing activists is not the same as it is with NIMBYs. Both want more housing. The issue is how much market rate to facilitate vs. how much BMR and other developer concessions to negotiate for.
- pcwalton 8y ago
  Tenants' rights groups in California don't want new housing. That's why they opposed SB 827, and that's why they opposed SB 35 (even though some of them, for example MEDA, went and used it anyway to construct affordable housing, while still maintaining their opposition to save face).
- ewjordan 8y ago
  People want more affordable housing by apartment count; activists will happily block large projects that would include sizable numbers of affordable units because they're not happy with the percentage of affordable units. The percentages that they want tend to be high enough that the projects would be unprofitable, so the end result is that 0 units get built, either at market rate or BMR. Most YIMBYs are perfectly happy to add more affordable units, as long as the economics work out so that something gets built. Many (not all) activists would prefer to block everything than compromise.
  - abalone 8y ago
    It is frustrating when developers and activists can't come to an agreement. But some projects have gone through. Jane Kim successfully negotiated 40% BMR in a few cases.[1] The developers are not in the poor house as a result. [1] https://www.janekim.org/2018/05/01/housing-that-works-for-san-franciscans/ https://www.janekim.org/2018/05/01/housing-that-works-for-sa...
    - khuey 8y ago
      That's because the "BMR" here is cross-subsidized by employment and much of it is for people making above the median income. This is not a solution to the housing shortage. https://sf.curbed.com/2016/2/3/10942390/inside-the-fuzzy-math-of-40-percent-affordable-housing https://sf.curbed.com/2016/2/3/10942390/inside-the-fuzzy-mat...
  - thwarted 8y ago
    Many (not all) activists would prefer to block everything than compromise. And not everyone realizes that some of these (air quote) "activists" are really NIMBYs and are bad-actors, claiming to be really aggressive pro-affordable units but so aggressive that nothing is ever good enough. They claim to want to compromise on things like percentage BMR, and then haggle over that for years, knowing that the ratio BMR they want is economically infeasible so the other side won't go for it, but they get to claim a highground under the guise of "trying to work with the other side" that never reaches a compromise. Meanwhile, they get what they really wanted: everything blocked and no building at all. The good will and intent of true activists is actively exploited by NIMBYs to cause "delays" (because delays, such as environmental impact studies and community engagement, which take massive amounts of time, are enshrined in law). NIMBYs can claim to be concerned about a bunch of different things that all result in the same outcome: delays significant enough that nothing gets built for a long enough duration that the end result is indistinguishable from explicitly not building anything.
    - abalone 8y ago
      This is also exactly what I'm talking about. YIMBY is in such denial about this, some choose to believe that low income housing activists must be some sort of plants under the control of rich, home-owning puppetmasters. There's just this tremendous cognitive dissonance, denial and resistance to listening to minority and low income communities. That's the white privilege problem. It probably hurt the bill.

abalone 8y ago

See, that's exactly what I mean. First, it's kind of condescending and dismissive, like low-income housing activists don't actually represent the populations they live with and fight for. Second, you're misinterpreting the graph. It just says renters want more housing. But if you scroll up you'll note the kind of housing "strong majorities favor": "affordable housing projects" -- not market rate. The debate here between YIMBYs and the low-income housing activists is not the same as it is with NIMBYs. Both want more housing. The issue is how much market rate to facilitate vs. how much BMR and other developer concessions to negotiate for.

pcwalton 8y ago
Tenants' rights groups in California don't want new housing. That's why they opposed SB 827, and that's why they opposed SB 35 (even though some of them, for example MEDA, went and used it anyway to construct affordable housing, while still maintaining their opposition to save face).
ewjordan 8y ago
People want more affordable housing by apartment count; activists will happily block large projects that would include sizable numbers of affordable units because they're not happy with the percentage of affordable units. The percentages that they want tend to be high enough that the projects would be unprofitable, so the end result is that 0 units get built, either at market rate or BMR. Most YIMBYs are perfectly happy to add more affordable units, as long as the economics work out so that something gets built. Many (not all) activists would prefer to block everything than compromise.
- abalone 8y ago
  It is frustrating when developers and activists can't come to an agreement. But some projects have gone through. Jane Kim successfully negotiated 40% BMR in a few cases.[1] The developers are not in the poor house as a result. [1] https://www.janekim.org/2018/05/01/housing-that-works-for-san-franciscans/ https://www.janekim.org/2018/05/01/housing-that-works-for-sa...
  - khuey 8y ago
    That's because the "BMR" here is cross-subsidized by employment and much of it is for people making above the median income. This is not a solution to the housing shortage. https://sf.curbed.com/2016/2/3/10942390/inside-the-fuzzy-math-of-40-percent-affordable-housing https://sf.curbed.com/2016/2/3/10942390/inside-the-fuzzy-mat...
- thwarted 8y ago
  Many (not all) activists would prefer to block everything than compromise. And not everyone realizes that some of these (air quote) "activists" are really NIMBYs and are bad-actors, claiming to be really aggressive pro-affordable units but so aggressive that nothing is ever good enough. They claim to want to compromise on things like percentage BMR, and then haggle over that for years, knowing that the ratio BMR they want is economically infeasible so the other side won't go for it, but they get to claim a highground under the guise of "trying to work with the other side" that never reaches a compromise. Meanwhile, they get what they really wanted: everything blocked and no building at all. The good will and intent of true activists is actively exploited by NIMBYs to cause "delays" (because delays, such as environmental impact studies and community engagement, which take massive amounts of time, are enshrined in law). NIMBYs can claim to be concerned about a bunch of different things that all result in the same outcome: delays significant enough that nothing gets built for a long enough duration that the end result is indistinguishable from explicitly not building anything.
  - abalone 8y ago
    This is also exactly what I'm talking about. YIMBY is in such denial about this, some choose to believe that low income housing activists must be some sort of plants under the control of rich, home-owning puppetmasters. There's just this tremendous cognitive dissonance, denial and resistance to listening to minority and low income communities. That's the white privilege problem. It probably hurt the bill.