14 ms·

Can a new mayor fix San Francisco’s housing and homelessness problems?

• crooked-v 8y ago
  No. Fixing the housing problem will take overriding the NIMBYs that are limiting housing density, which the mayor doesn't have the power to do.
  • threatofrain 8y ago
    But do landowners have majority voting power in SF? If not, then maybe some people aren't voting to their interests.
    • matte_black 8y ago
      They do.
    • plankers 8y ago
      I'd say that's a pretty safe bet. The mad levels on income inequality are doing their part to obscure exactly what people's interests are in both the short- and long-term.
    • asdsa5325 8y ago
      They do among people who actually vote, but not among all people able to vote.
    • rsync 8y ago
      "But do landowners have majority voting power in SF? If not, then maybe some people aren't voting to their interests." It is implied (and sometimes expressed) that "NIMBY" outcomes in elections like this are illegitimate and not "true" democratic outcomes. I reject this notion. I am very much in favor of urban in-fill in San Francisco and increased density in many parts of the city - but not at the expense of democratic processes.
      • matte_black 8y ago
        Agreed, if you are going to have democratic processes you must be willing to accept their outcomes, even when the results are not in your favor or grossly against your interests.
      • conanbatt 8y ago
        I can't verify with real numbers but my mental model is that votes on housing are not representative of the population. SF has a very high foreigner population that cant vote. They are moslty renters. US renters also might not live enough time in the city to register, be politically active, or end up moving due to lifestyle or economic reasons. And of renters you will have those that have rent control, which end up in tandem with owners about de-regularization. Im sure that if you put up a vote landowners and rent-controlled renters have a concentrated interest, and renters and foreigners dont have representation even if they are the majority. If you took all renters of SF in the last 6 years you might get a higher number than landowners but they cannot fight it politically. So I adhere to the notion of unrepresentative democratic outcomes.
        • rhizome 8y ago
          US renters also might not live enough time in the city to register As of 2017, California has same-day voter registration. They can register on voting day.
          • conanbatt 8y ago
            They need to be inthe city on voting day, and whatever the vote is they dont have the same level of intensity of interest than the homeowners. Lets look at the big picture: if everyone that lived in san francisco in the last 10 years voted to build more or to stop building, what would be the resulting of such a vote? I think the answer is obvious. And the fact that it isnt, is just lack of representation.
            • rhizome 8y ago
              Well, now you're moving the goalposts, but doesn't everybody have to vote where the voting devices are? Beyond that, your hypothetical is pretty loaded.
    • Kalium 8y ago
      They do, but there's a wrinkle. Specifically, it's not fully correct to equate NIMBYs and landowners in SF. SF has plenty of renters who are also NIMBYs, having been convinced that the only way to preserve their lifestyle is to oppose everything.
    • nerfhammer 8y ago
      You're forgetting that something like 75% of SF has rent control and are thereby excluded from the main reason to care. EDIT: 75% of rental units & 45% of total
      • kelnos 8y ago
        It's 45%, as stated by the article. Let's not let hyperbole go too far.
        • refurb 8y ago
          45% of all housing stock, but 75% of all rental units.
      • hcknwscommenter 8y ago
        But they should care. Rent control is like gold hand cuffs. Eventually you face a very high chance of being trapped in a dammed if you stay (wrong location, not enough room, etc.) and dammed if you move (huge increase in rent) situation. Building more housing, in sufficient numbers, should alleviate this problem.
    • Redoubts 8y ago
      Local elections have pathetic turnout, usually 10 to 20%
      • DrScump 8y ago
        That effectively means that one's vote counts fivefold to tenfold as much... which makes not voting, while complaining about the results, exceptionally perplexing.
  • thx11389793 8y ago
    It was disheartening to see Jane Kim vote against sb827. The detractors moaned that it would usurp local authority over development. As someone who has to put up with the effects of insane housing policy, I'd rather see the state step in here. The local governments and NIMBYs are already failing us.
    • dsfyu404ed 8y ago
      People decades ago said exactly what you're saying and that's how we got local regulation. It turns out local regulation just entrenched the problems more deeply. I've yet to hear a good reason why recursion is going to solve the problem instead of entrench it at the next level up.
      • djajshgsjja 8y ago
        Housing supply is in part a collective action problem. Lots of people will benefit from development somewhere else, but lose out from the local effect of development down the block. If the net effects of a development are positive, but the negative effects are concentrated whether local power can block the development, less development will happen and people are worse off overall.
    • jakelarkin 8y ago
      nit: Jane Kim a SF supervisor did not have a vote a California State Senate bill
      • nbantique 8y ago
        But she changed her position and held rallies opposing 827 saying allowing more housing near public transportation was not the answer nor going vertical. She says “we are not against housing" and "this is not the right way to build” but her actions prove different. I have not seen any solutions from her
      • thx11389793 8y ago
        true, thanks for the correction.
  • vkou 8y ago
    NIMBYs are not the sole problem. Vancouver and Seattle, and their suburbs have had a lot of construction happening for the past decade, yet housing costs in both cities have spiraled out of control.
    • Kneedler 8y ago
      Dunno about Vancouver, but NIMBYs are a huge problem in Seattle. Jump into the comment section of any local neighborhood news blog post discussing development and you'll see what I mean.
    • Maybestring 8y ago
      In King county, there has been lots of construction in the last decade, but not enough to keep pace with immigration.
    • Silfen 8y ago
      NIMBYs are a huge problem in Seattle. Depending on how you count, roughly 80% of the city is zoned single family[0]. Construction isn't happening fast enough. In 2016 Seattle only gained 0.4 housing units for every job[1]. [0]https://fancybeans.com/2018/01/24/65-57-35-how-much-seattle-land-is-zoned-single-family-really/ https://fancybeans.com/2018/01/24/65-57-35-how-much-seattle-... [1]http://blog.employmarket.com/2017/03/13/2016-metro-area-employment-growth-and-housing-permits/ http://blog.employmarket.com/2017/03/13/2016-metro-area-empl...
  • luddaite 8y ago
    I recently heard homeowners referred to as a cartel on a podcast. It was definitely thought provoking. Is there any way to create a home ownership system where existing homeowners are discouraged from making it harder for other people to get homes?
    • nerfhammer 8y ago
      Repealing prop 13
    • vorpalhex 8y ago
      Cartels use violence to gain profit. Homeowners invest their own money, at significant interest rates, to obtain a place to live. They do of course have an interest in protecting that investment - with increased density comes increased crime, stressed parking, and other problems. To call homeowners a "cartel" as if they're extorting their local community for protection money is inherently misleading.
      • nerfhammer 8y ago
        A cartel just means colluding to limit supply to increase profit for cartel members. There is nothing in the definition of a cartel that requires violence or illegality. For instance, Canada has a legal maple syrup cartel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_Quebec_Maple_Syrup_Producers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_Quebec_Maple_Syr...
        • tialaramex 8y ago
          Not just supply, cartels are a group working together to manipulate markets in a variety of ways, also including: Hold prices for their own suppliers artificially low by agreeing a price cap and refusing to pay more. They rely on suppliers having nowhere else to sell. e.g. British supermarkets have been repeatedly accused and sometimes IIRC convicted of operating a cartel to demand unfairly low prices from food producers. Agree to split geographies so that there's effectively no competition to supply and each member of the cartel has local monopolies in all or most territory. This should be familiar to US folks who want High Speed Internet outside of a major city. All agree never to offer a product which would hurt the overall market but be profitable for the first to offer it. Some have claimed the long delay in electric cars coming to market is evidence of this sort of cartel. Cartels are illegal in much of the world (but ordinary laws don't apply to sovereign entities). If you're ever part of some big industry insider meeting and the lawyers make everybody agree not to talk about prices, future products or other commercial issues it's not because they're commercially sensitive, it's because your executives could do jail time if a court decides your group is a cartel.
  • joshe 8y ago
    The mayor has several levers to speed the construction of housing. More housing would get built with a pro housing mayor.
    • s73v3r_ 8y ago
      But would it be effective housing, or just more housing that sits dark because it was bought as a way to park cash?
  • pascalxus 8y ago
    And even if he could override NIMBYs, the number of laws and processes and procedures in place that prevent more building are absolutely staggering. Not to mention, the middle class is leaving. By the time we get rid of all the crazy regulations, the middle class will be gone and there will be no one left to build this stuff up ~ someone's got to wield the hammers (labor cost will be too high).
  • bcoates 8y ago
    I don't live in SF but it looks like the planning commission is appointed by the mayor.
    • Kalium 8y ago
      SF has a lot of bodies with veto powers over any building project (like neighborhood councils) and there's a lot of legal levers to pull. There's a lot more to it than just the city's planning commission.
      • diogenescynic 8y ago
        We need to reform that. There are too many ways for NIMBYs to throw obstacles in front of new development, which hurts everyone, and helps mostly the rich who already own property.
        • Kalium 8y ago
          We do! Unfortunately, reforming it is actually surprisingly difficult because NIMBYism is pretty popular.
      • DrScump 8y ago
        What is the legal foundation of these "veto powers" to which you refer?
        • Kalium 8y ago
          They're structured as approvals required for construction to begin.
          • DrScump 8y ago
            But what "bodies" have such power besides the City Council? (Planning Commissions generally can make recommendations but the ultimate power lies in a City Council)
  • wankerrific 8y ago
    Right on cue - YIMBY/SFBARFers respond to any HN headline with the words San Francisco and Housing with their strawman argument "NIMBY'S". Nevermind the fact that the question here is about homelessness which is exacerbated when you lobby to mow down affordable SROs and rent controlled housing so some developers can rebuild luxury condos in their place. How exactly will that help the homelessness problem?
    • briandear 8y ago
      More housing (even luxury) increases supply thus lowers prices. That means that someone living in a studio might move to a 1 bed, leaving the studio vacant, thus increasing supply as people move up — a process that is only possible with a greater supply. And rent control actually leads to shortages as mobility is reduced because of people staying in places longer than they would have otherwise. It also disincentivizes creation of new housing. Greater supply is needed. That’s the bottom line.
      • vicnov 8y ago
        THIS. Every time I hear "we need to protect poor from eviction by evil tech workers" I want to scream. Yeah sure.. tech workers who make 150k+ are dreaming about moving in a shitty house in East Bay. Boulding more affordable housing looks great in a political ad, but does not do shit to resolve the crisis
    • joshe 8y ago
      You really can build enough housing to lower prices. Tokyo has. You can get a small Tokyo studio apartment for $700 per month. [1] This is because they build housing. San Francisco, London, New York, and Seattle all don't build housing and prices go up. [2] If housing were easier to build people would build more affordable housing. No developer cares if they build expensive housing or affordable housing, they are maximizing return on investment. Turning a 1 story house into a 3 story house for a 30% return makes developers just as happy as developing 20 luxury condos for a 30% return. And even those luxury condos provide housing for people who would otherwise buy old condos and renovate them. As long as the housing is more dense and there is more of it, prices will come down. [1] https://resources.realestate.co.jp/buy/average-rent-in-japan-by-prefecture/ https://resources.realestate.co.jp/buy/average-rent-in-japan... [2] https://www.ft.com/content/023562e2-54a6-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3c60 https://www.ft.com/content/023562e2-54a6-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3...
• rsync 8y ago
  One thing I haven't heard discussed, and would like to, is the notion that there might be (effectively) an unlimited number of people willing to be homeless in California. Which is to say, you might be able to "solve" homeless problems in Denver or Salt Lake or St. Paul - and there have been some very interesting and encouraging policy moves there, especially in Salt Lake City. This might be because there are only so many people willing to be homeless in St. Paul. Or Green Bay or Denver - because of the cold and snow. What does it mean if the stream of homeless into SF/LA/SD is, effectively, unlimited ? How would that change our proposed solutions ?
  • protonimitate 8y ago
    I think it's incredibly insensitive to assume that just because the weather is nice that people are fine being homeless. Homelessness is by and large a product of mental health issues, and a lack of a good mental health system. >only so many people willing to be homeless... right, because so much of the homeless population just needs to try harder. If this is how people really see the issue it's no wonder that its still an issue.
    • tmpz22 8y ago
      How would you explain homelessness in countries with much better access to mental health services? Homelessness is a combination of issues like mental health services, housing prices, social safety nets, and much, much more. The real question scares people to even think about: what is the real price of ending the homeless epidemic and are we as a society actually willing to pay it? What if housing prices had to cut in half and taxes had to double? What if funding had to increase by 50x? What if 1:5 families had to accept a homeless person into their spare bedroom?
      • toasterlovin 8y ago
        > Homelessness is a combination of issues like mental health services, housing prices, social safety nets, and much, much more. The elephant in the room is drug use. Nobody wants to admit it, but most of the problems that the non-homeless experience with the homeless are related to drug use and mental health issues.
• joshe 8y ago
  I hadn't decided who to vote for, this helps. There is no more urgent problem in the bay area than housing and there is no way to fix it other than by building more housing. London Breed for mayor it is.
  • staticautomatic 8y ago
    FYI Breed skipped out on practically all of the mayoral debates with no compunction whatsoever.
• dekhn 8y ago
  Only political will will fix its problems. And I don't think the proposed leaders have that.
• mchannon 8y ago
  I suspect, as in Vancouver, a lot of foreign-originated dirty money is getting parked in SF real estate, where the structures sit vacant. One of Vancouver's innovative approaches was a special tax assessment on vacant structures. I honestly wonder what percentage of SF, including its commercial office space, is simply a vehicle for money laundering. Switzerland and the Cayman Islands have nothing on Uncle Sam when it comes to real estate opacity.
  • ulkram 8y ago
    is there data to back this up? or will it require a panama papers type leak before we know?
    • almost_usual 8y ago
      As someone who knows a few property owners in San Francisco this is a common thing. People in tech make peanuts compared to who is holding property in the city. Most of these wealthy people don't rent because rent control will bring down the value of their property (you can't evict the tenants). We're talking about international levels of wealth, these same people have multiple pieces of property in Hong Kong which makes San Francisco look dirt cheap.
      • lazyasciiart 8y ago
        I know a few property owners in San Francisco and this is the first I've heard of it. Sounds like an urban legend.
        • jeffreyrogers 8y ago
          It happens in other cities, so it would be odd if it's not happening in SF too.
        • deleted 8y ago
          [deleted]
        • almost_usual 8y ago
• crsv 8y ago
  Jason Calacanis makes comments about this from time to time on his podcast. There's some pretty nontrivial problems with the whole NIMBY stuff, and it seems like it will likely have to involve some seriously legislation that I think might be more at the governor / state senate level. The homelessness problem is something that no one has solved really well and is perhaps even more complicated than the housing crisis itself (though they're part of the same challenge in many ways). This is one of those big daunting problems that feels increasingly make or break for SF as a whole, and given it the size and complexity of the problem, will likely involve a very disruptive and painful change to address. If I'm taking a bet here, I think it's more likely that they don't handle the problem effectively and the workforce and economy distribute out of the system, followed by a sudden and severe real-estate market correction, and then the growth will settle and flatten for a while
  • rhizome 8y ago
    This is one of those big daunting problems that feels increasingly make or break for SF as a whole My sense is that it's "make or break" only for people who have been here for three years and are trying to decide whether to remain for two more.
    • toasterlovin 8y ago
      This is only true if you think it's okay that people born in California can't afford to start families there. The state's housing regulations favor older, established people and wealthy newcomers over people born in California. If you really want to make that tradeoff, then go for it, but I don't think most people view the issue through this particular lens. IMO, they should.
    • dcosson 8y ago
      That's kind of the whole point. Is the city full and now only open to the wealthy and people who got lucky enough to buy houses > 5 years ago (or get locked into rent control > 5 years ago), or should it be allowed to grow to welcome new people from around the country and world who want to move here in search of better opportunities? Because people who have lived here 3 years or less by extension includes everyone who doesn't live here yet (as well as basically everyone under 25 unless they grew up here). I would also push back on the "deciding whether to stay for 2 more years" part - sure, maybe young people tend to plan 2 years ahead at a time, but they're really deciding if it's a place they want to settle down in permanently. If they stay 2 more years they may well end up staying 20 more. So I don't think it's at all a stretch to say this is a make or break issue for the city.
• rhizome 8y ago
  tl;dr: Betteridge's Law of Headlines One of the tragic tropes of San Francisco is that people often and loudly think homelessness just needs to be "fixed," and that it just takes getting the right person into office to do so. But there ain't no silver bullet and these issues are complicated. It seems like SF has been moving in good directions as far as dialing down the "arrest the homeless" strategy propounded by carpetbaggers offended that the sidewalks don't remind them of Topeka, the evolution of Navigation Centers, and other homeless-directed policies. Frankly, zoning and development issues seem easy compared to homelessness. It's popular to dehumanize those without money, so the ideas only trickle in. Flint, MI still has poisoned tap water, after all.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• seibelj 8y ago
  > The city’s zoning laws are among the most restrictive in the country. They limit the height and density of new buildings and give local residents, often property owners, the ability to severely delay new development. Most of the city’s land area, particularly the posh western bits, is zoned for single-family homes, which now comprise one-third of its housing stock. Almost all the city’s land faces height limits of 40 feet, or about three storeys. The result is a city where rents are sky-high but buildings are not. That is the central problem, and more government regulation on top of an already insane amount of red tape and restrictions will not fix it. You must allow developers to develop
• theNJR 8y ago
  I'm re-reading Gladwells What the Dog saw, and just came to Million Dollar Murray: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/02/13/million-dollar-murray https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/02/13/million-dollar... The conclusions to this certainly made sense to me. Were they debunked or forgotten?
• wfbarks 8y ago
  "No"
• littlesheephtpt 8y ago
  Why can't tech companies out-muscle NIMBY's and get 30-50 story residential buildings approved? After spending time in different parts of China, it seems asinine that most buildings here don't exceed ~4 stories.
  • almost_usual 8y ago
    We're not in China where the Government can decide to do whatever it wants. People in the community will vote on issues and elect officials into office who they think serve their interests. It is a common attitude of "I'd rather have no housing than more housing for people like them". Despite all the media the majority of people in Bay Area communities don't work in tech. My landlord actively seeks people from the Bay Area to rent to and if they're not from here they're going to pay more rent especially if they work in tech. You're paying the tech transplant tax.
    • littlesheephtpt 8y ago
      People in the community probably want their slummy airbnb's and garages to rent keep renting for astronomical rates. Also, we're not in China but the population density issue is the same. If the jobs are in one location, you don't actively prevent new housing or better public transportation.
  • moby 8y ago
    The question you're really wanting to ask is "why don't tech companies want to be good corporate citizens?" It's because of profit. Amazon opposing the per-employee tax that would provide critical city services should help explain exactly where their priorities lie.
    • littlesheephtpt 8y ago
      I would think having their employees in the office for an extra 2 hours per day because of reduced commute would be more beneficial.
      • 8y ago
• carapace 8y ago
  Two points I want to mention: first, this article is pretty informative (it's been on HN before I'm pretty sure) about rents, construction, etc. in SF: https://experimental-geography.blogspot.com/2016/05/employment-construction-and-cost-of-san.html https://experimental-geography.blogspot.com/2016/05/employme... > Building enough housing to roll back prices to the "good old days" is probably not realistic, because the necessary construction rates were never achieved even when planning and zoning were considerably less restrictive than they are now. Building enough to compensate for the growing economy is a somewhat more realistic goal and would keep things from getting worse. > In the long run, San Francisco's CPI-adjusted average income is growing by 1.72% per year, and the number of employed people is growing by 0.326% per year, which together (if you believe the first model) will raise CPI-adjusted housing costs by 3.8% per year. Therefore, if price stability is the goal, the city and its citizens should try to increase the housing supply by an average of 1.5% per year (which is about 3.75 times the general rate since 1975, and with the current inventory would mean 5700 units per year). If visual stability is the goal instead, prices will probably continue to rise uncontrollably. - - - - - Second, SF city politics, always a bit freaky in the best of times, has gotten really weird since Mayor Lee passed away. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/24/us/san-francisco-mayor-breed-farrell.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/24/us/san-francisco-mayor-br... - - - - - Put these two items together and the short answer to the question in the title is, "No." As mentioned in the article, we already spend one quarter of a billion dollars on homelessness in SF. That's not a typo: 0.25 * 10 to the ninth power. > San Francisco’s programmes, which cost $250m per year, are praised by many campaigners against homelessness. Still, the city could spend its money more efficiently. There's plenty of money, even after: > About two-thirds of its homelessness budget goes on rent subsidies and “permanent supportive housing”. So ~$170m for housing (never mind that folks aren't homeless if they live in a house) still leaves ~$80m to deal with a few thousand people. > Early intervention is often much cheaper. Yes. Something like 60% of EMS response downtown is related to issues with a small handful of people. The ambulance drivers know them by name. - - - - - Last but not least, a random thought in re: > Jeff Kositsky, the city’s director of homelessness services, cites the example of a driver for Lyft, a ride-hailing service, who nearly fell into homelessness after his car was damaged. The city kept him off the streets by simply paying off the cost of his car. What? As an S.F. resident this doesn't seem right. I appreciate that this guy isn't homeless, that's great, I'm not disturbed by that. The thing that I find unsettling is why didn't his car insurance pay for it? Or Lyft for that matter? But then I have to remind myself that this is the city that passed a law to just give money to certain businesses if they were considered "Legacy" enough. I'm left-leaning but that blew me away: https://www.sfheritage.org/legacy/legacy-business-registry-preservation-fund/ https://www.sfheritage.org/legacy/legacy-business-registry-p... > The registry is open to businesses and nonprofits that are 30 years or older, have been nominated by a member of the Board of Supervisors or Mayor, and in a hearing before the Small Business Commission, prove that they have made a significant impact on the history or culture of their neighborhood. Only 300 business can be nominated annually and all applicants must agree to maintain the historic name and craft of their businesses. https://sfosb.org/legacy-business https://sfosb.org/legacy-business > Through the Legacy Business Historic Preservation Fund, Legacy Businesses on the registry may receive Business Assistance Grants of $500 per full-time employee per year, while landlords who extend the leases of such businesses for at least 10 years may receive Rent Stabilization Grants of $4.50 per square foot of space leased per year. The business grants will be capped at $50,000 annually; the landlord grants will be capped at $22,500 a year. For fiscal years 2017-18 and 2018-19, a Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment of 3.1% will be added to the grants. Additional CPI adjustments will be made every two years. Yes, Virgina, we collect taxpayer money and then give some of it to businesses we like just because we like them.
• fosk 8y ago
  The Economist is ignoring the fact that the city administration in San Francisco is now extremely busy, and I mean 24/7 busy, cracking down on electric scooters that - unlike needles, human excrements, tents and substance abuse - are a real problem that needs a resolution ASAP. As soon as this insurmountable plague has been eradicated, the city administration will finally have time to talk again about the things that matter, like: Should Vaillancourt Fountain be finally removed or not? Or after introducing the soda tax, is it finally time for a burrito tax? Of course really anything that would prevent them from fixing the real problems that are affecting SF. SF needs its own Rudy Giuliani and its own Broken Windows policy[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory
  • icey 8y ago
    > The Economist is ignoring the fact that the city administration in San Francisco is now extremely busy, and I mean 24/7 busy, cracking down on electric scooters that - unlike needles, human excrements, tents and substance abuse - are a real problem that needs a resolution ASAP. Don't discount the virtue signaling that's going on here. It's an election year, and tech is still a reasonably good whipping boy for voters. Of all my friends, the non-tech ones seem much more likely to vote than the tech ones. Many of my tech friends in SF aren't even registered to vote here.
    • dvtrn 8y ago
      Of all my friends, the non-tech ones seem much more likely to vote than the tech ones Interesting. I realize I'm asking you to spitball, and that's fine legitimately curious to hear something outside the box but why do you think that is? Seems to me an unlikely division when it comes to voter participation, or at least a very unexpected one.
      • icey 8y ago
        I'm not sure, but it's been a little surprising to me as well. For the past month any time I've had a conversation with someone who had an opinion about politics and policies in SF, I've asked them if they have voted yet, or if they're going to vote; and while nearly everyone has had an opinion, only two people in tech out of probably two dozen have said yes. Of the remaining lot, a bunch have said they never registered to vote for a variety of reasons ("I forgot to", "Oh, I need to do that sometime", "I don't want my information getting sold", "I still don't have a California driver's license", etc). On the other hand, friends not in tech (much more varied population by job; artists, food-service & bar industry, construction, medical) were much more motivated to tell me not only what their opinions were, but how they were voting (or had already voted) and why. It's possible that this will change nearer to the mid-term, but it doesn't seem like primary elections get people that excited. It's a great question though, and I'll start asking more deeply about it because I'm curious now as well!
• skookumchuck 8y ago
  Here in Seattle we have the $12 million per mile bike lanes, and the mayor's latest proposal, beds for the homeless at $12,600 per bed. The city government spending is so cost-ineffective it's clear they'll never solve any problems.
  • briandear 8y ago
    And yet they also whine for a head-tax because they apparently don’t have enough money. That’s why I oppose head-taxes because they don’t even spend the money they have responsibly; I certainly don’t want them to have more. It’s like feeding an addict.
• d_burfoot 8y ago
  > A further constraint... is its wide-ranging rent-control scheme... All three leading candidates... would like to see it expanded. I read this in about the same light as if I read that all three candidates believe in homeopathy and intelligent design.
  • hcknwscommenter 8y ago
    I am rent controlled. It is the only reason I still live in SF. I would love for more housing to be built that I could afford to buy. In the meantime, I would also love to be able to move into a rent controlled single family home, even if that raised rent prices %5 (estimate of effect of rent control on rent prices from other poster). It's the stability I crave. I know too many people who rented a single family home and then their rent tripled over night.
• habosa 8y ago
  Here's something that has been making me scratch my head lately. San Francisco has had a Democratic mayor from 1964-now. It's widely regarded as the farthest left city in the country besides maybe Berkeley across the bay. Most Democrats/leftists want to reduce wealth inequality and are proponents of more taxation, welfare, etc. Yet, San Francisco is one of the most economically unequal cities in this country [0]. So what's up? Why have the city's Democrats been so unable to help the poor if that's really something they believe in? Democrats always say that if you elect the Republicans then the city will belong to the rich and powerful. But that's what we have now... Note: I am a Democrat, I already voted for SF mayor this cycle and I voted for a Democratic candidate. 0: https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/15/income-inequality-in-the-bay-area-is-among-nations-highest/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/15/income-inequality-in-...
  • raldi 8y ago
    > San Francisco is one of the most economically unequal cities in this country. So what's up? Show me a city with low inequality, and I'll show you a city that's driven away all its poor people.
    • AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      San Francisco is unequal. It is also driving away all its poor people, because they can't afford to live there. (The homeless, clearly, are the exception.)
    • habosa 8y ago
      I am not one to claim that what I want is complete equality. Or even anything close. But the richest city in the richest state should not have thousands of people living on the streets and rents so high that nobody working a low or middle tier job can afford to live within an hour, let alone raise a family.
      • lotsofpulp 8y ago
        If SF decided to fix the homeless situation by providing them with psychiatric care and/or housing, all, then all the homeless around the country would start heading to SF and they would end up subsidizing it for the whole country. Even as it is, the nice weather and tolerance makes it attractive for homeless to move there, hence the inequality. There needs to be a national solution to the drug addiction and (lack of) mental care that the US is suffering from.
• BooneJS 8y ago
  No.
• abalone 8y ago
  This article is a bit unfair to Kim and Leno. It says they are "cooler" on housing than Breed, but that's not really accurate. They all want more housing. The policy difference is over how hard to negotiate with developers for working class housing. The only quote from Kim is this: "If I’m going to give you ten additional storeys, I’m going to want you to increase your middle-income housing programme." You can debate whether a purely free market approach will address this effectively, but it's inaccurate to characterize fighting hardest for low- and middle-income housing now as a "cooler approach". Cities need housing for service industry workers -- especially as more professionals move in.
  • raldi 8y ago
    The problem is, Kim doesn't seek to maximize below-market-rate units produced -- she instead seeks to maximize the percent of all units produced that are below-market-rate. In other words, given a choice between building 1,000 market-rate units and 200 BMR, or building 100 market-rate units and 100 BMR, she'll pick the latter.
    • abalone 8y ago
      Do you have a source for that claim? She claims to have "negotiated and won more affordable and middle-income housing than any city legislator."[1] [1] http://kalw.org/post/mayoral-candidate-jane-kim-takes-affordable-housing-crisis http://kalw.org/post/mayoral-candidate-jane-kim-takes-afford...
      • raldi 8y ago
        See, for example, <https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2016/01/s-f-affordable-housing-jane-kim-developers.html> https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/20..., which refers to "Supervisor Jane Kim's proposed ballot measure that would more than double the amount of affordable housing that every market-rate project over 25 units has to provide" and how "it would destroy the businesses of both market-rate and affordable developers", and yet, "Kim is standing by her proposal". As predicted by the city economist, after this passed we saw a huge drop in the production of both BMR and market-rate units: https://medium.com/yes-in-my-blog-yes/the-25-inclusionary-rate-is-killing-affordable-housing-db143c4abd31 https://medium.com/yes-in-my-blog-yes/the-25-inclusionary-ra...
• raldi 8y ago
  Apartments -- of any height! -- are illegal to build in 78.6% of SF: http://sfzoning.deapthoughts.com/ http://sfzoning.deapthoughts.com/ Fix that, and you'll fix the city's housing and homelessness problems. It wouldn't take ugly skyscrapers, just 4-to-6 story apartment buildings like they have all over the most beautiful cities in Europe.
  • jacobolus 8y ago
    Yeah, it’s absurd. But good luck fixing it. Whenever I tell people “the fix to SF’s housing problem is to upzone the Sunset to allow 5-story buildings full of studio & 1-bedroom apartments with little shops on the ground floor and improve transit, so that 20-somethings aren’t forced to sleep in bunk-beds 5 people to a rented 2-bedroom house with a back yard they don’t use and ride Ubers to work in heavy traffic”, they look at me like I’m crazy, and insist the solution is stricter low-income housing requirements and stronger protections against eviction. This “world class city” is zoned to be a sleepy beach town. Doesn’t help that the whole rest of the Bay Area is mostly zoned the same way.
    • DrScump 8y ago
      with little shops on the ground floor There's tons of vacant ground floor retail spaces already. In the Amazon and on-demand era, viability is tough if you aren't moving primarily liquor and lottery tickets. Even fast food isn't viable in much of SF (something like 9 McDonald's alone have closed in the last few years... including the longstanding one at 3rd and Townsend).
      • jacobolus 8y ago
        Having mixed-use zoning doesn't mean every available space must be used for retail.
  • sien 8y ago
    That's a great map. That could be taken and with the method in this paper: http://www.nber.org/papers/w8835 http://www.nber.org/papers/w8835 The added cost by zoning in area could be calculated. It'd be absolutely massive. Perhaps someone already has.
• dmode 8y ago
  TBF, SF has build a fair number of housing compared to the Bay Area. It is cities like San Mateo, Palo Alto, and Mountain View that are primarily to blame for the housing crisis.
• buzzword 8y ago
  No. These are human issues. Humans can't get certain resources. Humans don't want to build new things. Humans don't want certain people to have housing. Changes in leadership do not heal these. Never have.