6 ms·

> I never got a straight answer whenever I pointed out the problems What are the problems?

Sebb767 6y ago
Not the OP, but the ones that come immediately to mind is that a) capping the population will reduce the market and therefore increase prices and b) if you start limiting the people, the ones remaining will most likely be the rich [0] one way or another, making the market even more competitive. [0] Unless the place is not actually worth striving to live in, but in that case you probably don't have a rent price problem.
- lightgreen 6y ago
  > reduce the market and therefore increase prices Why is that a problem? > if you start limiting the people, the ones remaining will most likely be the rich Why is that a problem?
  - milkytron 6y ago
    > to make the city more affordable It doesn't achieve the goal, in fact further distances it.
  - dghlsakjg 6y ago
    > Why is that a problem? Shelter is one of the few goods which a society necessarily needs. The alternatives (being homeless) are unacceptable. People give up food, electricity and healthcare before they give up shelter. It's fine at a micro scale (oceanfront is expensive, but a few blocks away is affordable), but causes incredible problems at a macro scale as the bay area demonstrates (people not able to live within 50+ miles of their support networks). It is VERY hard to uproot an entire life and move to an area where cost of living is lower, especially when you are poor. People in poverty form informal local support networks (neighbors watching kids, friends that can loan you $5 to top up your phone), making it that much harder to move to a lower cost area.
  - TulliusCicero 6y ago
    > Why is that a problem? This is like asking why high prices for food or health care are problems. It's a necessity of life, man. Do we really need to explain why basic necessities being very expensive is bad?
  - Sebb767 6y ago
    > Why is that a problem? The grand-grandparent stated: > I enjoyed challenging my friends on what they would do to make the city more affordable. So, when the solution results in increased pricing, his challenge was inherently failed.
closeparen 6y ago
The main problem with "control who can live here" is that you would generally like children born in the place to be on the shortlist, but this would be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. Cities and states can't privilege natives over migrants. Rent control and the heritability of Prop 13 are the best California can do to prioritize incumbents. They do work somewhat, but the next generation of natives is still as screwed as prospective migrants re: forming their own households in the place, at least while their parents are still alive.
- lightgreen 6y ago
  > this would be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause There's a lot of places where very few people can afford to live. Like Manhattan for example. > Cities and states can't privilege natives over migrants. If native own property they can continue living there as long as they wish.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - closeparen 6y ago
    San Francisco would like housing to remain scarce but be allocated to its favorite people, who are quite distinct from those with the highest ability to pay. This part is best achieved by an immigration policy. But that’s not allowed, so they’re stuck with imperfect substitutes. We can protect our favorite people from displacement, but it’s harder to make homes that change hands flow to them vs. tech workers.
    - Dracophoenix 6y ago
      I'm sorry I don't follow this point. Who exactly are these "favorite people" exactly, and how does California expect these "favorite people" to, overlaps notwithstanding, compete with those with the highest ability to pay all while being able to keep the state budget in tact?
    - kodah 6y ago
kar5pt 6y ago
How are you going to keep people out of the city without raising prices? Also how is that fair to people who didn't have the privilege of being born in a nice city?
SllX 6y ago
What’s the problem with: 1. Picking who is worthy of living in San Francisco as determined by the City and County of San Francisco 2. Removing current residents that don’t fit the criteria And 3. Controlling who may then migrate in? You tell me, Ford. You tell me. I have faith that you can do it. I’ll give you exactly one hint: San Francisco is not a country.
- lightgreen 6y ago
  > 1. Picking who is worthy of living in San Francisco as determined by the City and County of San Francisco No it is decided by the free market. > 2. Removing current residents that don’t fit the criteria Only those who rent. People who own property can continue to live there as long as they wish.
  - SllX 6y ago
    I think you’re misunderstanding my original post, and thus presenting an argument you want to make in an incomplete and easily misunderstood manner. I apologize for the sarcasm in light of this. Cheers!
olliej 6y ago
Who gets to decide who is kicked out? at some point there will be a bunch of people born in the city who want to buy a house but can't but of the cap. You have to consider (and policies like this don't) what happens even if no one moves into the city. In that scenario the population will still rise, until it hits the cap, at which point people have to leave. At that point where do they go? Presumably other cities will be allowed such caps so they can't move to those either. Then there are historical population control tools like redlining, and racist applications of eminent domain used to remove "undesirable" (a euphemism for black) neighborhoods. By placing a cap on population you ensure that the victims of that discrimination never have the opportunity to return to the places they used to live - and as an added bonus you get to claim that your policy isn't racist because it has no stated racial bias. Say your rental lease is up, and the only place you can find to rent is Colma. Now you've left SF are you ever allowed to return. What if someone else moved into SF while you were away thus taking your position under the cap? Honestly if anything this possibly right here could easily cause rental and housing prices to go up even more. Then there's SF's claim to be an open and welcoming multicultural city - you can't claim that well disallowing new residents, and so new cultures, from entering. The only real way to reduce hoisin cost is to build more housing. Where and what type you build are the only actual questions that you need to answer.
- lightgreen 6y ago
  > racist applications of eminent domain used to remove "undesirable" (a euphemism for black) neighborhoods I'm sure white trash neighbourhoods were not welcome there as well. Anyway, I'm not ready to continue conversation where everything is considered racist, sorry.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/living/article/Anti-Asian-and-anti-Black-racial-housing-15426732.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/living/article/Anti-Asian-and-an... Only, there are still racially restrictive covenants on many properties to this day. Yes, in San Francisco. Thankfully, they're unenforceable, but the evidence is writ large on the legal system. And no, they didn't forbid white people from living anywhere -- if you've got reams of evidence to contradict that, show it. Deeper dive into the history: https://haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/system/tdf/haasinstitute_rootsraceplace_oct2019_publish.pdf https://haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/system/tdf/haasinstitute_... Frisco isn't special here, for example, Seattle's timeline (including these covenants still being on the books) is pretty much the same https://depts.washington.edu/civilr/covenants.htm https://depts.washington.edu/civilr/covenants.htm
scotty79 6y ago
The problem of that solution is that the person proposing such solution lands on the list of people to kick out. Then suddenly it's not a good solution for him anymore.

Not the OP, but the ones that come immediately to mind is that a) capping the population will reduce the market and therefore increase prices and b) if you start limiting the people, the ones remaining will most likely be the rich [0] one way or another, making the market even more competitive. [0] Unless the place is not actually worth striving to live in, but in that case you probably don't have a rent price problem.

lightgreen 6y ago
> reduce the market and therefore increase prices Why is that a problem? > if you start limiting the people, the ones remaining will most likely be the rich Why is that a problem?
- milkytron 6y ago
  > to make the city more affordable It doesn't achieve the goal, in fact further distances it.
- dghlsakjg 6y ago
  > Why is that a problem? Shelter is one of the few goods which a society necessarily needs. The alternatives (being homeless) are unacceptable. People give up food, electricity and healthcare before they give up shelter. It's fine at a micro scale (oceanfront is expensive, but a few blocks away is affordable), but causes incredible problems at a macro scale as the bay area demonstrates (people not able to live within 50+ miles of their support networks). It is VERY hard to uproot an entire life and move to an area where cost of living is lower, especially when you are poor. People in poverty form informal local support networks (neighbors watching kids, friends that can loan you $5 to top up your phone), making it that much harder to move to a lower cost area.
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  > Why is that a problem? This is like asking why high prices for food or health care are problems. It's a necessity of life, man. Do we really need to explain why basic necessities being very expensive is bad?
- Sebb767 6y ago
  > Why is that a problem? The grand-grandparent stated: > I enjoyed challenging my friends on what they would do to make the city more affordable. So, when the solution results in increased pricing, his challenge was inherently failed.

closeparen 6y ago

The main problem with "control who can live here" is that you would generally like children born in the place to be on the shortlist, but this would be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. Cities and states can't privilege natives over migrants. Rent control and the heritability of Prop 13 are the best California can do to prioritize incumbents. They do work somewhat, but the next generation of natives is still as screwed as prospective migrants re: forming their own households in the place, at least while their parents are still alive.

lightgreen 6y ago
> this would be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause There's a lot of places where very few people can afford to live. Like Manhattan for example. > Cities and states can't privilege natives over migrants. If native own property they can continue living there as long as they wish.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- closeparen 6y ago
  San Francisco would like housing to remain scarce but be allocated to its favorite people, who are quite distinct from those with the highest ability to pay. This part is best achieved by an immigration policy. But that’s not allowed, so they’re stuck with imperfect substitutes. We can protect our favorite people from displacement, but it’s harder to make homes that change hands flow to them vs. tech workers.
  - Dracophoenix 6y ago
    I'm sorry I don't follow this point. Who exactly are these "favorite people" exactly, and how does California expect these "favorite people" to, overlaps notwithstanding, compete with those with the highest ability to pay all while being able to keep the state budget in tact?
  - kodah 6y ago

kar5pt 6y ago

How are you going to keep people out of the city without raising prices? Also how is that fair to people who didn't have the privilege of being born in a nice city?

SllX 6y ago

What’s the problem with: 1. Picking who is worthy of living in San Francisco as determined by the City and County of San Francisco 2. Removing current residents that don’t fit the criteria And 3. Controlling who may then migrate in? You tell me, Ford. You tell me. I have faith that you can do it. I’ll give you exactly one hint: San Francisco is not a country.

lightgreen 6y ago
> 1. Picking who is worthy of living in San Francisco as determined by the City and County of San Francisco No it is decided by the free market. > 2. Removing current residents that don’t fit the criteria Only those who rent. People who own property can continue to live there as long as they wish.
- SllX 6y ago
  I think you’re misunderstanding my original post, and thus presenting an argument you want to make in an incomplete and easily misunderstood manner. I apologize for the sarcasm in light of this. Cheers!

olliej 6y ago

Who gets to decide who is kicked out? at some point there will be a bunch of people born in the city who want to buy a house but can't but of the cap. You have to consider (and policies like this don't) what happens even if no one moves into the city. In that scenario the population will still rise, until it hits the cap, at which point people have to leave. At that point where do they go? Presumably other cities will be allowed such caps so they can't move to those either. Then there are historical population control tools like redlining, and racist applications of eminent domain used to remove "undesirable" (a euphemism for black) neighborhoods. By placing a cap on population you ensure that the victims of that discrimination never have the opportunity to return to the places they used to live - and as an added bonus you get to claim that your policy isn't racist because it has no stated racial bias. Say your rental lease is up, and the only place you can find to rent is Colma. Now you've left SF are you ever allowed to return. What if someone else moved into SF while you were away thus taking your position under the cap? Honestly if anything this possibly right here could easily cause rental and housing prices to go up even more. Then there's SF's claim to be an open and welcoming multicultural city - you can't claim that well disallowing new residents, and so new cultures, from entering. The only real way to reduce hoisin cost is to build more housing. Where and what type you build are the only actual questions that you need to answer.

lightgreen 6y ago
> racist applications of eminent domain used to remove "undesirable" (a euphemism for black) neighborhoods I'm sure white trash neighbourhoods were not welcome there as well. Anyway, I'm not ready to continue conversation where everything is considered racist, sorry.
- klyrs 6y ago
  https://www.sfchronicle.com/living/article/Anti-Asian-and-anti-Black-racial-housing-15426732.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/living/article/Anti-Asian-and-an... Only, there are still racially restrictive covenants on many properties to this day. Yes, in San Francisco. Thankfully, they're unenforceable, but the evidence is writ large on the legal system. And no, they didn't forbid white people from living anywhere -- if you've got reams of evidence to contradict that, show it. Deeper dive into the history: https://haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/system/tdf/haasinstitute_rootsraceplace_oct2019_publish.pdf https://haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/system/tdf/haasinstitute_... Frisco isn't special here, for example, Seattle's timeline (including these covenants still being on the books) is pretty much the same https://depts.washington.edu/civilr/covenants.htm https://depts.washington.edu/civilr/covenants.htm

scotty79 6y ago

The problem of that solution is that the person proposing such solution lands on the list of people to kick out. Then suddenly it's not a good solution for him anymore.