3 ms·
Because people (in a democracy) decided that it's not in public's interest to have low paid service providers e.g., teachers, cooks, gov workers, to commute man
by btian 8y ago
Because people (in a democracy) decided that it's not in public's interest to have low paid service providers e.g., teachers, cooks, gov workers, to commute many hours a day.
These affordable places are "Toyotas". They're not million dollar apartments with doorman and valet.
It's okay to disagree, and these are not human rights in the sense that it's written into the constitution, or in UN conventions. Not everything governments do are related to human rights.
- tripletao 8y agoAdmittedly not a doorman or a valet, but this one's got a "concierge": https://housing.sfgov.org/listings/a0W0P00000GRYOoUAP https://housing.sfgov.org/listings/a0W0P00000GRYOoUAP http://thecivicsf.com/ http://thecivicsf.com/ Apartment #205, income-restricted to between $3258 and $3800/month for a single person, $1303/month. The market units are roughly 3x, though the interior finishes are often nicer. I'm guessing around $700k for a similar condo? It's a kind of genius. If everyone getting screwed by the SF housing market united, then they could vote for land use changes that would solve the problem. Like, if SF abolished all zoning tomorrow, then a lot of terrible things would happen; but do you really doubt that housing prices would go down? We'd have problems, but not the one big central crushing problem that we have now. Affordable housing policies divide those people, according to stuff like: faith in government vs. market solutions personal eligibility vs. ineligibility for the units preference between a bad apartment vs. a lottery for a great one That splits the landowners' natural enemies into warring factions, as we see here.