4 ms·
> build more housing and put them in it This is exactly what they want. Their contention is that SB50 doesn't place enough emphasis on affordability, so develo
by notJim 7y ago
> build more housing and put them in it
This is exactly what they want. Their contention is that SB50 doesn't place enough emphasis on affordability, so developers will mostly build market-rate housing. If you build enough market rate housing, the prices do eventually come down, but that takes a while to happen. During that time, a lot of people can lose their homes, especially since lower-income areas can be the most profitable ones to build new housing in. So the people who need it most never end up seeing the benefits of lower prices from market-rate housing, because they get kicked out of the city before those benefits kick in.
- flaque 7y agoAgreed that SB50 will not fix the immediate homelessness problem; though I disagree with their belief you can't pass SB50 until it also has affordable housing units. You can have multiple bills, we shouldn't shoot ourselves in the foot just because we have only a solution to one part of the problem.
- notJim 7y agoIn principle I agree with you, but in practice what often happens is that it takes a herculean effort to pass any bill at all, and politicians are more inclined to declare victory than to pass a follow-up bill. Even if they pass a follow-up bill, it may take until the next legislative session, which could mean a huge delay. This creates incentives to get the bill modified before passage.
- selrumingo 7y agoAbsolutely. They will pass the bill and stop there. Very important to hold the line on this.
- hcknwscommenter 7y agoI disagree. The more you put into a single bill, the more natural enemies of that legislation you create. Pass what you can piece by piece. Hold the line, sure, by not letting up on the pressure after the first . . . and second . . . and third . . . bill is passed, etc.. Politicians only give up and rest on their laurels when the public loses interest.
- theklr 7y agoHowever this is an issue of our elected officials being obtuse. California is beyond a democratic supermajority and still can’t seem to walk and chew bubble gum.
- selrumingo 7y agoThe Democratic Party is a mess of conflicting patronage. Sadly, there is still a voting constituency who does not think the wealthy should control every aspect of the lives of the working poor.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- huebomont 7y agoblocking all housing in the meantime doesn't fix this problem.
- selrumingo 7y agoIt’s a bargaining device.
- hcknwscommenter 7y agoA very poor one given how many voters who actually vote (older, landowners, wealthier, etc.) are perfectly happy with the status quo.