8 ms·

People want more affordable housing by apartment count; activists will happily block large projects that would include sizable numbers of affordable units becau

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.
  - wahern 8y ago
    A family member of mine is, in fact, a low-income housing developer in SoCal.[1][2] She has built and maintains hundreds of units housing poor and working-class families and seniors. She has to put up with all the same crap--the community input circus, being slow-walked by the zoning board (no matter that they were literally begging her for the housing only months earlier), endless CEQA litigation, etc. Even though she's being given money by the state (as transferable tax credits) to build housing that is wholly, perpetually BMR and which municipalities are legally obligated to push through (because of the quota system), she's pretty much in the same position as any other developer. Even though she'll have all her ducks lined up and pretty much prepared to break ground the same day she submits her full proposal, it can still take years and ridiculous amounts of money (tax payer money!) before she can break ground. She has to swim up the same sh*t creek as for-profit developers because the situation is just... that... bad. You ever wonder why it takes an eternity for the City of San Francisco to complete a housing project by itself and with fully allocated funds? Even though the mayor, zoning board, and every other involved official sincerely wants the project to succeed and doesn't perceive any serious impediment or harm? It's because the consequence of streamlining the process for themselves would be some marginal streamlining of the process for market developers. Somehow anti-development sentiment has become so pathological that politicians and activists will literally spite themselves. Except not really, because they're not the ones getting screwed. But at least they can feel good about themselves for standing up for the guy they just kicked to the curb. [1] http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/communities/east-county/sd-se-elcajon-temecula-20180208-story.html http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/communities/east-county/... [2] http://www.thecoastnews.com/affordable-complex-gets-green-light-from-courts/ http://www.thecoastnews.com/affordable-complex-gets-green-li...

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.
- wahern 8y ago
  A family member of mine is, in fact, a low-income housing developer in SoCal.[1][2] She has built and maintains hundreds of units housing poor and working-class families and seniors. She has to put up with all the same crap--the community input circus, being slow-walked by the zoning board (no matter that they were literally begging her for the housing only months earlier), endless CEQA litigation, etc. Even though she's being given money by the state (as transferable tax credits) to build housing that is wholly, perpetually BMR and which municipalities are legally obligated to push through (because of the quota system), she's pretty much in the same position as any other developer. Even though she'll have all her ducks lined up and pretty much prepared to break ground the same day she submits her full proposal, it can still take years and ridiculous amounts of money (tax payer money!) before she can break ground. She has to swim up the same sh*t creek as for-profit developers because the situation is just... that... bad. You ever wonder why it takes an eternity for the City of San Francisco to complete a housing project by itself and with fully allocated funds? Even though the mayor, zoning board, and every other involved official sincerely wants the project to succeed and doesn't perceive any serious impediment or harm? It's because the consequence of streamlining the process for themselves would be some marginal streamlining of the process for market developers. Somehow anti-development sentiment has become so pathological that politicians and activists will literally spite themselves. Except not really, because they're not the ones getting screwed. But at least they can feel good about themselves for standing up for the guy they just kicked to the curb. [1] http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/communities/east-county/sd-se-elcajon-temecula-20180208-story.html http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/communities/east-county/... [2] http://www.thecoastnews.com/affordable-complex-gets-green-light-from-courts/ http://www.thecoastnews.com/affordable-complex-gets-green-li...