3 ms·

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.

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.