6 ms·
> “This is a win for San Francisco residents,” Herrera said. “Whether you’re a tenant or a landlord who has been following the law, this is a victory. This outc
by nostromo 8y ago
> “This is a win for San Francisco residents,” Herrera said. “Whether you’re a tenant or a landlord who has been following the law, this is a victory. This outcome frees up more homes for long-term tenants and stops unfair competition in the marketplace. The serious financial penalty is an important deterrent. It sends a clear message to those looking to illegally profit off of San Francisco’s housing crisis: Don’t try it. We will catch you. Most importantly, we preserved more than 45 housing units to be used as homes, not hotel rooms. We are fighting back against San Francisco’s housing crisis in every way possible.”
This city attorney seems... extra.
You know what else frees up more housing units? Letting people build housing does. You know who is responsible for the housing crisis? The city is.
- crwalker 8y agoWith an attitude like this, SF will be the next Detroit. Exponential economic curves always turn out to be sigmoids, and when the sigmoid flattens and the economy is carrying tremendous dead weight predicated on future increasing prosperity, the city will be out of options.
- tjr225 8y agoWould actually be pretty cool - but SF is far more beautiful than Detroit so, doubtful that it will ever collapse to that extent.
- taurath 8y agoWhy don’t they don’t let people build housing? Voters in the city.
- refurb 8y agoWhile that's true, they don't have to bend over backwards for those voters. SF supervisors have a lot of leniency in clearing out the construction approval backlog.
- toomuchtodo 8y agoIt seems...foolish to not bend over backwards for those who control your destiny through democratic actions. Property owners have the most to lose, and therefore the most incentive to keep their neighborhood as-is. I find it hard to fault them for their actions (especially when you're investing seven figures into your home's purchase). The core problem is that SF property owners value their homes, communities, and property values over the inclusion of additional residents, and that won't change without stripping this constituency of their property and voting rights (which is of course untenable in a functioning democracy).
- munk-a 8y agoSF really is in a situation where a regional development council needs to come in and clear out a lot of the low-density housing, but since that's unlikely to happen this story makes me quite happy.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- dvtrn 8y agoPardon my snark, but this sounds like eminent domain wearing a velvet glove.
- madeuptempacct 8y agoI actually understand it. Ironically, a San Francisco resident Uber driver explained it to me. She said something like "People like the small city feel without over-population, people like the view from almost anywhere in the city - we don't want to to be another new your. And while the skeptic in me sees "Property owners don't want prices to go down," I also see the other side now. San Fran wouldn't be San Fran even if we dug deep to have a ton of housing without ruining the view. There is something to be said for not seeing a single police car until going South at night (or getting pulled over for going South on some street starting with an S "after 9"). There is also something to be said for living around people who can afford to live there (I can't, so don't take this as some elitist techie failing to check his privilige).
- pj_mukh 8y agoAfter moving here, I see this point too. However, there's very clearly parts of the city that could look like Taipei and the city still wouldn't lose its look at feel. Feel free to stick all of us Techies in Gigantic high-rises in Dogpatch and Mission-bay to bring the housing costs down everywhere else (and stop playing these band-aid games with Airbnb)
- taurath 8y agoRight - those advocating for more housing have almost nothing to offer the people already locked in. This to me is the crux of the problem.
- eli 8y agoTo be fair, the city attorney doesn’t get to set zoning laws
- refurb 8y ago"Never let a crisis go to waste."
- ppeetteerr 8y agoIt's not the city. The residents of the municipalities do not want to build new buildings.
- Green_man 8y agoIs it the residents (many of whom are tenants), or the owners specifically who are resistant to new housing? I've always heard it was the owners, but as someone who doesn't live in SF, I can't verify.
- ilikehurdles 8y agoProperty owners are responsible for the housing crisis. The city is at their whim. But that’s beside the point, because this is a case about an unlicensed Airbnb. I don’t know what the laws are where you come from, but someone illegally turning their multi-tenant property in a residential neighborhood into a 24-hour motel isn’t someone I have any sympathy for. Besides, Airbnb is no answer to the dearth of housing in any city. The lawyer is spouting facts. Those are 45 units that would be going to people who would live or work in SF and instead are used to price gouge visitors (relative to the going rent/mortgage rates) who want to save $50 on a hotel room.
- Simon_says 8y agoEither they're being price gouged or they're saving $50 on a hotel room. You can't have it both ways.
- mattnewton 8y agoThe hotels can gouge them harder, or the hotels can be worth the $50 price, etc
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- ta_egdhs 8y ago>gouge visitors >save $50 on a hotel how the hell can you simultaneously be gouged and save money? what makes the long term resident more deserving than the short term visitor? why should the rootless pay a subsidy to the rooted?
- codyb 8y agoI mean, that's a fairly easy question to answer. The rooted pay taxes, provide stability to a neighborhood, and are invested in the upkeep of their properties. They also tend to be better neighbors than a constant flow of random people who may not care whether they make noise, or disturb others. I certainly would be incredibly peeved if I paid a million dollars for a unit and then the person down the hall turned their apartment into a miniature hotel and had random people coming in and out at all times of the day that I'd never seen before. Beyond that, these units drive up rental prices, and avoid luxury taxes which can benefit locals to enrich the owners of AirBnB.
- woolvalley 8y agoThats most SF politicians unfortunately.
- zjaffee 8y agoBuilding housing isn't the solution to solving the problem created by airbnb, as most airbnb units would be competing for tenants towards the bottom of the market, and would likely be rent controlled, when compared to new housing that competes for tenants at the top of the market.
- sintaxi 8y agoThere is good reason why its called the LAW of supply and demand.
- tomc1985 8y ago> This city attorney seems... extra. Good. Extra is what you need to stand up to SV clout How do you propose convincing propertyowners to finance their own vertical construction?
- jbob2000 8y agoI read an article that did the math on the SF housing issue (it’s killing me that I can’t find it, but it was on HN). It’s actually physically impossible to build housing at the rate that SF is growing. Even if you got rid of the politics. Even if there was unlimited land. The issue is that you literally cannot build housing at the skyrocketing rate of growth that SF is experiencing. That’s why this is a crisis, it’s essentially a mass migration to SF.