4 ms·

> 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 displace

> 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.

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.