7 ms·

Its quite daunting that the employees find it easier to compel facebook to increase their salaries, maybe 10%, than to complain on city hall that puts the rules

Its quite daunting that the employees find it easier to compel facebook to increase their salaries, maybe 10%, than to complain on city hall that puts the rules that made their rent 300% of what they were.

closeparen 7y ago
At ~500k/unit, neither municipal nor state government can afford to build public housing in any meaningful quantity. We just had a huge electoral battle over a measure that raises taxes for only a few thousand units (Prop C). Millions of them would be required. Rent control expansion is both popular and technically doable, but would require repealing Costa-Hawkins, which survived this year's challenge. You will never see a left-leaning activist group representing the working class in California support a "let the market work" sort of policy like more for-profit development permits. Those ideas - public housing, rent control, increased supply - are pretty much the policy levers, and none are going to happen at scale within this set of voter preferences.
- conanbatt 7y ago
  There are way more people interested in a housing policy solution than employees of facebook wanting a pay raise.
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  > You will never see a left-leaning activist group representing the working class in California support a market-based solution like permitting more for-profit development. If that ever happens, it will be despite these workers' objections. That's like, literally, the entire platform of the YIMBY movement. These groups are by and large left-leaning, and activist groups. They generally support more market rate or affordable (or both!) housing. Basically any development.
  - closeparen 7y ago
    YIMBY sits pretty far to the right as Bay Area politics go, and is primarily tech workers fighting against the DSA, tenants union, and other working-class coalitions.
- ska 7y ago
  >You will never see a left-leaning activist group representing the working class in California advocate for a market-based solution like permitting more for-profit development. Is that really true? Elsewhere I have seen left-leaning activists advocate for higher density for-profit development housing so long as it is zoned to force developers to target all income groups in some manner, not just the most short term profitable ones. Is it really so different in California? You don't have to have a completely free market to have market based solution, after all. Which is a good thing as you're unlikely to ever see a truly free market there.
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    Developers could target low income housing by building a bunch of megacondos to suck programmers out of the old neighborhoods.
    - closeparen 7y ago
      They call this “trickle down” and oppose it pretty strongly.
  - closeparen 7y ago
    What we typically see is fighting to maximize price-controlled units as a percentage of development while still minimizing overall development. A small, 100% affordable project preferred over a large, 20% affordable project, even if the latter yields more affordable homes. If you believe that market-rate units accelerate gentrification, this even makes sense, as the more market-rate units you have, the more affordable units you'll need. The first priority is to minimize disruption to existing communities; BMR units are just a way of partially mitigating it when it does happen. Hence "we can't build our way out the housing crisis." "De-commodify housing" is a lot sexier than "find the optimal BMR percentage requirement."
- conanbatt 7y ago
  The best thing a city like SF could do is abolish its sales taxes. That increases the salary of everyone and particularly low-wage workers.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > The best thing a city like SF could do is abolish its sales taxes. That increases the salary of everyone and particularly low-wage workers. Not those, including inevitably low-wage workers, whose jobs are cut to balance the budget with lower revenue, including those cut as second- and higher-order effects. Rebating the sales/use taxes of low wage workers (or simply the first $X for those also paying SF income tax), possibly making this revenue neutral by alos raising sales tax rates, would be more focussed.
    - conanbatt 7y ago
      Low-wage workers are not working for the city. The city pays very handsomely (400k police, 100k poop patrol, etc). It is the city that has to tighten their 9billion a year belt.
      - dragonwriter 7y ago
        > Low-wage workers are not working for the city. The minimum civil service full-time pay rate currently for the City and County of San Francisco [0] is a biweekly $1,320, which is $34,320 annually. Per HUD, for a single person household in SF: - $33,850 is extra low income - $56,450 is very low income - $90,450 is low income So, yes, low wage workers work for the city (even before considering second order impacts like workers for city contracting firms, etc.) > The city pays very handsomely (400k police, 100k poop patrol, etc). [citation needed] [0] http://sfdhr.org/sites/default/files/documents/Classification-and-Compensation/Hourly-Rates-of-Pay-by-Classification-and-Step-FY19-20.xlsx http://sfdhr.org/sites/default/files/documents/Classificatio...
        conanbatt 7y ago
        Requested citations: https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search/?q=police&y=2018 https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search/?q=police&... https://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-poop-patrol-employees-make-184000-a-year-2018-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-poop-patrol-em... SF city has a budget of 9billion dollars ~ and 329,700 households. That gives you a whooping 27,300 dollars of spending per household. They would have to send a bill to every household for 2270 every month to cover their raw expenditures. Who is the landlord now?
driverdan 7y ago
> rules that made their rent 300% of what they were. What does that mean? If you're recommending rent control I suggest you learn more about it. It is universally condemned by economists. Rent control does not work.
- chillacy 7y ago
  I assumed they meant insane zoning laws.

closeparen 7y ago

At ~500k/unit, neither municipal nor state government can afford to build public housing in any meaningful quantity. We just had a huge electoral battle over a measure that raises taxes for only a few thousand units (Prop C). Millions of them would be required. Rent control expansion is both popular and technically doable, but would require repealing Costa-Hawkins, which survived this year's challenge. You will never see a left-leaning activist group representing the working class in California support a "let the market work" sort of policy like more for-profit development permits. Those ideas - public housing, rent control, increased supply - are pretty much the policy levers, and none are going to happen at scale within this set of voter preferences.

conanbatt 7y ago
There are way more people interested in a housing policy solution than employees of facebook wanting a pay raise.
joshuamorton 7y ago
> You will never see a left-leaning activist group representing the working class in California support a market-based solution like permitting more for-profit development. If that ever happens, it will be despite these workers' objections. That's like, literally, the entire platform of the YIMBY movement. These groups are by and large left-leaning, and activist groups. They generally support more market rate or affordable (or both!) housing. Basically any development.
- closeparen 7y ago
  YIMBY sits pretty far to the right as Bay Area politics go, and is primarily tech workers fighting against the DSA, tenants union, and other working-class coalitions.
ska 7y ago
>You will never see a left-leaning activist group representing the working class in California advocate for a market-based solution like permitting more for-profit development. Is that really true? Elsewhere I have seen left-leaning activists advocate for higher density for-profit development housing so long as it is zoned to force developers to target all income groups in some manner, not just the most short term profitable ones. Is it really so different in California? You don't have to have a completely free market to have market based solution, after all. Which is a good thing as you're unlikely to ever see a truly free market there.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  Developers could target low income housing by building a bunch of megacondos to suck programmers out of the old neighborhoods.
  - closeparen 7y ago
    They call this “trickle down” and oppose it pretty strongly.
- closeparen 7y ago
  What we typically see is fighting to maximize price-controlled units as a percentage of development while still minimizing overall development. A small, 100% affordable project preferred over a large, 20% affordable project, even if the latter yields more affordable homes. If you believe that market-rate units accelerate gentrification, this even makes sense, as the more market-rate units you have, the more affordable units you'll need. The first priority is to minimize disruption to existing communities; BMR units are just a way of partially mitigating it when it does happen. Hence "we can't build our way out the housing crisis." "De-commodify housing" is a lot sexier than "find the optimal BMR percentage requirement."
conanbatt 7y ago
The best thing a city like SF could do is abolish its sales taxes. That increases the salary of everyone and particularly low-wage workers.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > The best thing a city like SF could do is abolish its sales taxes. That increases the salary of everyone and particularly low-wage workers. Not those, including inevitably low-wage workers, whose jobs are cut to balance the budget with lower revenue, including those cut as second- and higher-order effects. Rebating the sales/use taxes of low wage workers (or simply the first $X for those also paying SF income tax), possibly making this revenue neutral by alos raising sales tax rates, would be more focussed.
  - conanbatt 7y ago
    Low-wage workers are not working for the city. The city pays very handsomely (400k police, 100k poop patrol, etc). It is the city that has to tighten their 9billion a year belt.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > Low-wage workers are not working for the city. The minimum civil service full-time pay rate currently for the City and County of San Francisco [0] is a biweekly $1,320, which is $34,320 annually. Per HUD, for a single person household in SF: - $33,850 is extra low income - $56,450 is very low income - $90,450 is low income So, yes, low wage workers work for the city (even before considering second order impacts like workers for city contracting firms, etc.) > The city pays very handsomely (400k police, 100k poop patrol, etc). [citation needed] [0] http://sfdhr.org/sites/default/files/documents/Classification-and-Compensation/Hourly-Rates-of-Pay-by-Classification-and-Step-FY19-20.xlsx http://sfdhr.org/sites/default/files/documents/Classificatio...
      - conanbatt 7y ago
        Requested citations: https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search/?q=police&y=2018 https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search/?q=police&... https://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-poop-patrol-employees-make-184000-a-year-2018-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-poop-patrol-em... SF city has a budget of 9billion dollars ~ and 329,700 households. That gives you a whooping 27,300 dollars of spending per household. They would have to send a bill to every household for 2270 every month to cover their raw expenditures. Who is the landlord now?

driverdan 7y ago

> rules that made their rent 300% of what they were. What does that mean? If you're recommending rent control I suggest you learn more about it. It is universally condemned by economists. Rent control does not work.

chillacy 7y ago
I assumed they meant insane zoning laws.