5 ms·

What a mess. Sad to see "tenant" organizations yell and scream about gentrification and displacement, ignoring the fact that both of those things are happening

What a mess. Sad to see "tenant" organizations yell and scream about gentrification and displacement, ignoring the fact that both of those things are happening right now.

monadic2 7y ago
SB50 would make the problem worse the way it’s structured.
- manfredo 7y ago
  How is increasing the supply of housing going to increase gentrification? The housing shortage has resulted in high housing prices, which is the main driver of gentrification.
  - Pfhreak 7y ago
    Because it will displace communities while the housing is built and there's no guarantee the tenants can move back.
    - 33MHz-i486 7y ago
      they are anti-displacement provisions in the bill. gentrification/displacement can't happen if upzoning happens at scale of the entire regions/state. e.g. techies won't move to Oakland if there's a bunch of new housing in San Francisco, Palo Alto, Cupertino etc.
    - epistasis 7y ago
      You are spreading misinformation. This doesn't apply to any parcel that has a building been rented out for the past seven years. A length of time calculated to ensure that it is not profitable to tear down existing housing That among a whole host of other protections to make sure that nobody is displaced. There was a serious chance seriously upgrade protections for tenants while also increasing supply to prevent other pressures and welcome more people in to our cities. Instead a bunch of wealthy NIMBYs in suburbs do what they do and maintained exclusionary zoning to keep our apartments. A fraction of self described tenants groups carried water for landlords and wealthy homeonwer's profits by opposing this and giving conservatives the language to sound like they were woke. But be it tenants groups, non-profit affordable housing builders, unions, social justice groups, you will find them among the supporters.
    - manfredo 7y ago
      > Because it will displace communities while the housing is built and there's no guarantee the tenants can move back. Increasing the supply of housing displaces no one. What do you mean "no guarantee that tenants can move back"? A new apartment building creates units that new residents can move into instead of out-bidding residents on the existing supply of housing. An apartment that doesn't get built is an existing resident that now has to compete with more prospective renters, or further subdivisions of the existing housing.
      - Pfhreak 7y ago
        People cannot live in a building under construction, they have to find somewhere else to live while it is being built. To build a new apartment, you need to tear down some existing housing. And they probably lose their rent control in the process. So, some percentage of current residents will be forced to leave permanently. This is fixable with some regulation, but it's a really common oversight in these discussions. It's not just beginning and end state we have to think about, we have to consider the way the housing is built and what happens to the people during that time.
        manfredo 7y ago
        > People cannot live in a building under construction, they have to find somewhere else to live while it is being b Incorrect. Apartments can be built on empty lots or on land currently used for things other than apartments. Yet this kind of construction still meets fierce opposition from people claiming to be preventing gentrification: https://missionlocal.org/2019/02/how-the-developer-of-sfs-historic-laundromat-quietly-won/ https://missionlocal.org/2019/02/how-the-developer-of-sfs-hi... https://reason.com/video/san-francisco-mission-housing-crisis/ https://reason.com/video/san-francisco-mission-housing-crisi...
      - monadic2 7y ago
        I would read a book about the development of midtown and the fillmore before stating these opinions again. I can’t follow any of what you’re saying.
  - monadic2 7y ago
    Will the people it displaces be able to afford one of the units? If not, it’s just gentrification.
    - manfredo 7y ago
      Why would adding more units to the housing supply displace anyone? Who is displaced when 60 new apartment units open open up on a new building? Your question is a vacuously true: everyone who is displaced will be able to afford a new unit, because increasing the supply of housing displaces no one. In fact, it reduces displacement. Without new housing, more and more people are going to outbidding each other for a constrained supply of housing, thus displacing lower income residents. Increasing the housing supply is the best way to prevent displacement.
      - monadic2 7y ago
        Well, most people can’t afford market rate units in a high demand metropolis. Increasing supply will just allow paying off people to move via a buyout. The market rate will only go down when capital views vacant units as cutting into their investments, which won’t happen in a world where real estate is considered an asset.
    - matchbok 7y ago
      New housing does not cause gentrification. No studies support your claim. If new housing is not built then rich people will push out existing residents. Think about it.
- matchbok 7y ago
  Demonstrably false.
eli_gottlieb 7y ago
>Sad to see "tenant" organizations yell and scream about gentrification and displacement, ignoring the fact that both of those things are happening right now. Spicy take: they're fundamentally not mad about those things happening right now, they're mad about those things happening to them right now. California housing advocacy is Winston Smith screaming, "Do it to Julia!" over and over again. They oppose bills like SB50 because they prefer a zero- or negative-sum solution over a positive-sum solution, which would still allow those people to live near them and "destroy their community".

What a mess. Sad to see "tenant" organizations yell and scream about gentrification and displacement, ignoring the fact that both of those things are happening right now.

monadic2 7y ago

SB50 would make the problem worse the way it’s structured.

manfredo 7y ago
How is increasing the supply of housing going to increase gentrification? The housing shortage has resulted in high housing prices, which is the main driver of gentrification.
- Pfhreak 7y ago
  Because it will displace communities while the housing is built and there's no guarantee the tenants can move back.
  - 33MHz-i486 7y ago
    they are anti-displacement provisions in the bill. gentrification/displacement can't happen if upzoning happens at scale of the entire regions/state. e.g. techies won't move to Oakland if there's a bunch of new housing in San Francisco, Palo Alto, Cupertino etc.
  - epistasis 7y ago
    You are spreading misinformation. This doesn't apply to any parcel that has a building been rented out for the past seven years. A length of time calculated to ensure that it is not profitable to tear down existing housing That among a whole host of other protections to make sure that nobody is displaced. There was a serious chance seriously upgrade protections for tenants while also increasing supply to prevent other pressures and welcome more people in to our cities. Instead a bunch of wealthy NIMBYs in suburbs do what they do and maintained exclusionary zoning to keep our apartments. A fraction of self described tenants groups carried water for landlords and wealthy homeonwer's profits by opposing this and giving conservatives the language to sound like they were woke. But be it tenants groups, non-profit affordable housing builders, unions, social justice groups, you will find them among the supporters.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    > Because it will displace communities while the housing is built and there's no guarantee the tenants can move back. Increasing the supply of housing displaces no one. What do you mean "no guarantee that tenants can move back"? A new apartment building creates units that new residents can move into instead of out-bidding residents on the existing supply of housing. An apartment that doesn't get built is an existing resident that now has to compete with more prospective renters, or further subdivisions of the existing housing.
    - Pfhreak 7y ago
      People cannot live in a building under construction, they have to find somewhere else to live while it is being built. To build a new apartment, you need to tear down some existing housing. And they probably lose their rent control in the process. So, some percentage of current residents will be forced to leave permanently. This is fixable with some regulation, but it's a really common oversight in these discussions. It's not just beginning and end state we have to think about, we have to consider the way the housing is built and what happens to the people during that time.
      - manfredo 7y ago
        > People cannot live in a building under construction, they have to find somewhere else to live while it is being b Incorrect. Apartments can be built on empty lots or on land currently used for things other than apartments. Yet this kind of construction still meets fierce opposition from people claiming to be preventing gentrification: https://missionlocal.org/2019/02/how-the-developer-of-sfs-historic-laundromat-quietly-won/ https://missionlocal.org/2019/02/how-the-developer-of-sfs-hi... https://reason.com/video/san-francisco-mission-housing-crisis/ https://reason.com/video/san-francisco-mission-housing-crisi...
    - monadic2 7y ago
      I would read a book about the development of midtown and the fillmore before stating these opinions again. I can’t follow any of what you’re saying.
- monadic2 7y ago
  Will the people it displaces be able to afford one of the units? If not, it’s just gentrification.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    Why would adding more units to the housing supply displace anyone? Who is displaced when 60 new apartment units open open up on a new building? Your question is a vacuously true: everyone who is displaced will be able to afford a new unit, because increasing the supply of housing displaces no one. In fact, it reduces displacement. Without new housing, more and more people are going to outbidding each other for a constrained supply of housing, thus displacing lower income residents. Increasing the housing supply is the best way to prevent displacement.
    - monadic2 7y ago
      Well, most people can’t afford market rate units in a high demand metropolis. Increasing supply will just allow paying off people to move via a buyout. The market rate will only go down when capital views vacant units as cutting into their investments, which won’t happen in a world where real estate is considered an asset.
  - matchbok 7y ago
    New housing does not cause gentrification. No studies support your claim. If new housing is not built then rich people will push out existing residents. Think about it.
matchbok 7y ago
Demonstrably false.

eli_gottlieb 7y ago

>Sad to see "tenant" organizations yell and scream about gentrification and displacement, ignoring the fact that both of those things are happening right now. Spicy take: they're fundamentally not mad about those things happening right now, they're mad about those things happening to them right now. California housing advocacy is Winston Smith screaming, "Do it to Julia!" over and over again. They oppose bills like SB50 because they prefer a zero- or negative-sum solution over a positive-sum solution, which would still allow those people to live near them and "destroy their community".