4 ms·

They all need to go. Not one is a housing advocate. All spend their energy to limit housing. They say they are for affordable housing, but their mandates are de

They all need to go. Not one is a housing advocate. All spend their energy to limit housing. They say they are for affordable housing, but their mandates are designed to exclude both groups of people and housing.

yonran 7y ago
Not quite all of the BoS. Of the 4 misleading resolutions that the SF BoS passed to oppose SB 827 and SB 50 (https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0084-18.pdf https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0084-18.pdf https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0172-19.pdf https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0172-19.pdf https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0541-19.pdf https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0541-19.pdf https://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/R20-25%20SB%2050.pdf https://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/R20-25%20S...), only Sup. Ahsha Safaí and Mayor London Breed (and Jeff Sheehy and Vallie Brown, who are no longer in city hall) voted against the resolutions and in support of SB 50. It’s important to pay attention to which supervisors do what so that they can be held accountable on election day.
- justinzollars 7y ago
  They all say they are for affordable housing - but as I mentioned above the mandates are designed to exclude and prohibit housing. The results are clear very little actually gets built.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  Is there any reason to think they're not reflecting the will of their voters?
bsimpson 7y ago
It makes me sad that my supervisor got replaced with Dean Preston, whose entire persona is crafted around housing policy; yet, he is so staunchly against actually building housing. He's the epitome of everything wrong with SF Supervisors: they pit communities against each other to create political gridlock and build voting blocs for reelection, but do fuck-all to actually solve San Francisco's problems. No matter how many times they say "gentrification" in the same tone as "boogeyman," it won't refute basic supply-and-demand. Inaction just makes all the problems worse.
- chooseaname 7y ago
  > they pit communities against each other to create political gridlock and build voting blocs for reelection, but do fuck-all to actually solve San Francisco's problems. Sounds remarkably like national politics.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- justinzollars 7y ago
  Dean is a nice guy but I believe the way he looks at the problem is naive. He believes land lords are to blame for high costs - but I see this as a function of what the market is willing to support. He could guide the invisible hand of the market if he would allow more housing. But he favors character of the neighborhood over housing.
  - Twixes 7y ago
    Landlords are to blame for squeezing people like lemons (which extracts a lot money from software engineers and the like while leaving lower classes without decent housing), but the underlying problem is indeed insufficient supply. But what's really being done about either of these things?
    - justinzollars 7y ago
      No they are not. You could become a landlord and find out for yourself. Or you could simply do the math. Mortgage plus Insurance plus Earthquake insurance plus upkeep plus taxes. Costs are incredible. The only way to bring down rents is to increase supply. Everyone else is lying to you.
      - generalpass 7y ago
        I suspect you are being down-voted because a lot of landlords are renting out their first home while they have moved out and into a newer, nicer home and are now just exploiting the underclass. Presumably the mortgage on the first home is quite far below current market prices, but this is not enough to drive the landlord to offer a price that is necessarily in line with rents at the time the home was purchased. The mortgage interest is no longer tax deductible, so effective cost of ownership is higher than when compared to someone paying a mortgage on a home they live in. The profit from renting is compared against profit from selling. If the rental price is driven too low, the owner will prefer to sell and collect the profits (and the home will likely be taken off of the available rental inventory, which will further drive up rents).

yonran 7y ago

Not quite all of the BoS. Of the 4 misleading resolutions that the SF BoS passed to oppose SB 827 and SB 50 (https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0084-18.pdf https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0084-18.pdf https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0172-19.pdf https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0172-19.pdf https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0541-19.pdf https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/r0541-19.pdf https://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/R20-25%20SB%2050.pdf https://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/R20-25%20S...), only Sup. Ahsha Safaí and Mayor London Breed (and Jeff Sheehy and Vallie Brown, who are no longer in city hall) voted against the resolutions and in support of SB 50. It’s important to pay attention to which supervisors do what so that they can be held accountable on election day.

justinzollars 7y ago
They all say they are for affordable housing - but as I mentioned above the mandates are designed to exclude and prohibit housing. The results are clear very little actually gets built.
BurningFrog 7y ago
Is there any reason to think they're not reflecting the will of their voters?

bsimpson 7y ago

It makes me sad that my supervisor got replaced with Dean Preston, whose entire persona is crafted around housing policy; yet, he is so staunchly against actually building housing. He's the epitome of everything wrong with SF Supervisors: they pit communities against each other to create political gridlock and build voting blocs for reelection, but do fuck-all to actually solve San Francisco's problems. No matter how many times they say "gentrification" in the same tone as "boogeyman," it won't refute basic supply-and-demand. Inaction just makes all the problems worse.

chooseaname 7y ago
> they pit communities against each other to create political gridlock and build voting blocs for reelection, but do fuck-all to actually solve San Francisco's problems. Sounds remarkably like national politics.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
justinzollars 7y ago
Dean is a nice guy but I believe the way he looks at the problem is naive. He believes land lords are to blame for high costs - but I see this as a function of what the market is willing to support. He could guide the invisible hand of the market if he would allow more housing. But he favors character of the neighborhood over housing.
- Twixes 7y ago
  Landlords are to blame for squeezing people like lemons (which extracts a lot money from software engineers and the like while leaving lower classes without decent housing), but the underlying problem is indeed insufficient supply. But what's really being done about either of these things?
  - justinzollars 7y ago
    No they are not. You could become a landlord and find out for yourself. Or you could simply do the math. Mortgage plus Insurance plus Earthquake insurance plus upkeep plus taxes. Costs are incredible. The only way to bring down rents is to increase supply. Everyone else is lying to you.
    - generalpass 7y ago
      I suspect you are being down-voted because a lot of landlords are renting out their first home while they have moved out and into a newer, nicer home and are now just exploiting the underclass. Presumably the mortgage on the first home is quite far below current market prices, but this is not enough to drive the landlord to offer a price that is necessarily in line with rents at the time the home was purchased. The mortgage interest is no longer tax deductible, so effective cost of ownership is higher than when compared to someone paying a mortgage on a home they live in. The profit from renting is compared against profit from selling. If the rental price is driven too low, the owner will prefer to sell and collect the profits (and the home will likely be taken off of the available rental inventory, which will further drive up rents).