8 ms·
I cringe when I see SF bringing the Warriors to town. Why not use the space for housing? It’s not like Cincinnati where you need Sports attractions to draw peo
by mathattack 8y ago
I cringe when I see SF bringing the Warriors to town. Why not use the space for housing? It’s not like Cincinnati where you need Sports attractions to draw people to the area.
Having a Sports Team May help local restaurants, but I would think so would more houses. When there are so many homeless people, the housing stock is more important than a stadium.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- kippinitreal 8y agoFWIW the Chase Center is 100% privately financed. SF is actually benefitting from private investment into public transportation to/from the arena. Public housing is great, but it’s not like the city chose this instead of that.
- Retric 8y agoZoning is up to the city so it chose this. SF does not need public housing, even 1 million dollar condos in a high rise would help.
- mathattack 8y agoI agree. They can zone for housing. Anything that increases overall supply helps. They have mechanisms to encourage density (and affordability) too.
- FiveSquared25 8y agoNoT iN mUh bAcKyArD - “Historical Housing (we only want rising house prices and no “others”)”
- capkutay 8y agoshould cities not have entertainment venues that are welcomed by local residents?
- mathattack 8y agoNot if it confounds homeless problems.
- Retric 8y agoFocusing on local residents tends to be a sum optimal. Focus on what’s best for all city residents and you avoid a lot of local maxima in favor of a global one. Remember, people often have limited understanding of impacts focusing on a small percentage of what’s going on. Aka sound byte politics, a stadium is only half the story rarely used, low density parking can be a larger issue.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- sureshv 8y agoIIRC the Warriors stadium is privately financed. Not sure if there are any subsidies offered by the city.
- ironmagma 8y agoApparently, San Franciscans think housing inhibits quality of life. Talking to a few people for here it’s as though the most important thing about the city is having a nice sunlight during the day, and being able to see some of the sky without looking upwards, not unimportant things like poverty or having properly funded service workers.
- anonymous5133 8y agoSounds like you've been talking to people who don't like their real estate values going down.
- PaulHoule 8y agoAlso people who don't have their taxes go up when real estate values go up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13
- titanomachy 8y agoFirst I'm hearing of this. That's royally fucked up. I guess the only solution is to wait for all those people to die so that the homes will change hands and trigger re-assessment.
- hedora 8y agoNope. They can pass them to their kids, and it won’t trigger reassessment. > 60% of houses like that in the LA area are rented out for tax arbitrage reasons by the kids that inherited them. They can buy multiple houses rent them out, and then let the kids live in them when they grow up. Also, businesses can own multiple properties and sell them without reassessment (there is a well-known loophole involving shell companies that makes this possible). Basically the only people that get hit by prop 13 reassessments this are young working families that need to upgrade, or want to buy into a stable housing situation to raise their kids.
- anonymous5133 8y agoIf SF needs housing then they can just build into oakland and use BART to get into SF. Oakland is a very underdeveloped piece of real estate.
- arcticbull 8y agoBut then... SF still wouldn't have housing, Oakland would. It's in another county. Come on, there's no reason to limit buildings to as short as they are right now. It's as if the city of SF has given up on change entirely.
- almost_usual 8y agoThis is like beating a dead horse. People move to SF, complain there isn’t enough housing, do this for a few years and either leave or realize it’s not going to change. It is the way it is, it’s not changing in a year a or two. This is a generational thing that will take at least a decade if not longer to change. The End. Don’t believe me? Check this comment in five years. Call it NIMBY call it whatever you want but there is _no_ incentive for long term SF residents (10+ years) especially home owners to support more housing, especially for tech transplants.
- L_Rahman 8y agoTheir actions have a moral cost and the people who pay those costs aren't the tech transplants, they're literally every other kind of person who slowly finds themselves unable to live in a place that is just as much their home as the owners of property. Schoolteachers, firefighters, garbage truck drivers, restaurant workers, people who lost their job, people in temporary unemployment and in need of retraining. I understand that the problem feels intractable, but it's because we treat the people make it so like something that simply is. It is not a thing that simply is, it is a moral choice made my hundreds of thousands of people over and over again and it is their failure.
- ferongr 8y agoMorality is a spook. There are no "moral costs".
- mbreese 8y agoDon’t bring Cincinnati into this! Cincinnati learned these lessons the hard way with their stadium deals in the 90s. For the new MLS stadium being built here, the stadium is being privately financed. Public money is going to be used for a parking facility and other supporting infrastructure like streets, etc.
- foota 8y agoThat... Sounds like subsidizing the stadium.
- mbreese 8y agoThe city is paying for expanding general use parking in the downtown area around the stadium. It’s something that will be needed by everyone in that area, as is upgraded traffic infrastructure (lights, etc). Yes, the enhancements are needed because of the new stadium, but the benefit is not entirely to the MLS team. And these are nothing like the deals made many years ago where the city/county build stadiums for the Bengals and Reds and covered the entire cost, which is what was alluded to in the parent.
- labster 8y agoSo the profitable part is owned by the private financiers, and the city only pays for all the externalities?
- hedora 8y agoYeah, but the city doesn’t need to deal with the burden of owning the intellectual property, like the team name, etc.
- hedora 8y agoMLS has a bogus non-profit status, just like the NFL. That’s a huge subsidy. The lost property taxes on the developed stadium alone are huge
- jm4 8y agoYou think people are homeless because there is not enough housing available in the city? How many homes do you think you could build on the same plot of land as a basketball arena? Several hundred? Maybe a thousand condos? That’s like spitting in the ocean. And then what? Give them away to the homeless? It’s not like they’re going to pay for them just because you made a few more available. Housing is expensive in big cities because there are jobs, amenities and entertainment for a diverse group of people. That entertainment includes sports.
- alasdair_ 8y agoCurrent estimate of homeless people in SF is a bit over 7000. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_San_Francisco_Bay_Area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_San_Franci...) 1000 condos would be a massive boon.
- lukas099 8y agoRegardless, whether it's out of 10,000 or 1 million, that's 1 thousand people having homes that wouldn't have.
- the_cat_kittles 8y agohousing prices are definitely influenced by supply. and homelessness is definitely driven by housing prices. so, yea.
- toufiqbarhamov 8y agohousing prices are definitely influenced by supply. and homelessness is definitely driven by housing prices. so, yea. I think it’s more likely that mental illness and addiction are bigger factors, along with an absence of good interventions and an abuse of the prison system. Statistics showing a majority of American homeless people are either mentally ill, addicted to drugs, or both certainly support that view over yours, and reveals the deep complexity of solving the problem. You can’t just shove someone from the streets into a house and call it a day, they need far more support than that.
- thefounder 8y agoHomesless people don't eat much at restaurants and usually they are bad for business. They are an entire different issue. Housing alone won't bring them back in the econommy
- capkutay 8y agoChase Center is a pretty sorry scapegoat for SF housing problems. It's 100% financed by the team and was welcomed by residents. You can instead blame the thousands of acres of property in SF zoned for single family residences and all the empty plots in the Mission near BART. There's nothing wrong with building entertainment venues in cities if they're financed without tax payer money.
- irq11 8y agoThere are very few empty plots in the Mission. The few that exist are slated for development, or vacant for a reason. Try to find one, other than the gas station by 16th street BART (which I almost guarantee is what you’re talking about, and is an exception, not a rule.) You’re also overstating the support from “local residents”: the fact is that the city council gave a prime plot of redevelopable land (in a city with little available) to a sports team, as part of a sweetheart tax deal. It’s a criminal misappropriation of resources that was made behind closed doors.
- capkutay 8y agoIt was PRIVATE land, zoned for OFFICES, owned by SALEFORCE, then sold to the Warriors. And 50% of the land is still being used for corporate offices (Uber HQ will occupy it). Not sure what closed doors you're talking about. The Warriors stadium is literally a gold standard and a model that other sports teams should follow. Not only did they pay out of pocket, but they donated millions to the city to help manage traffic in the area.
- muzz 8y agoSo will the traffic to/from be on private roads?
- Animats 8y agoWhile the city of San Francisco put too much city money into the ballpark, that really was a run down warehouse area at the time.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]