5 ms·

Rent control in SF, until a state wide rent control bill came into effect at the beginning of this year, only affected buildings with certificates of occupancy

Rent control in SF, until a state wide rent control bill came into effect at the beginning of this year, only affected buildings with certificates of occupancy or which had residents from before one month in 1979. Thus there has been, arguably, a big incentive to build new buildings and develop new housing projects, because you could raise rent as much as you want on the tenants. The thing is, cities are not incentivized to allow more housing because of prop 13 and the amount of tax revenues they get. Personally I hate the many barriers that prevent San Francisco from creating more it's own new high quality public housing like many places in the EU or basically all of Singapore does. I think if those limits, which are mainly structural and historical, were eliminated, such that the city could make money directly from housing rental instead of solely through property tax, we'd see a very different SF, with well developed well run public housing that everyone would want to live in, instead of the too often poorly maintained public housing concentrated in economically disadvantaged areas. I'd ask anyone, before they tell me straight off why they think this can't work, to go look up singapore's housing system. Like I definitely could be wrong, but it does appear to be possible.

refurb 5y ago
Singapore’s HDB system has its own set of problems. And don’t get me wrong, it did an amazing job of housing it’s population, but it has gaps. - govt had a surplus of units in the 90’s (Asian financial crisis) so moved to a “buyers put down money then we’ll build”. As such there is a 5 year wait for new HDBs, a lottery system and lots of disappointed young adults - HDB lottery means you might end up with an HDB downtown (win!) or way on the outskirts (ok). The ones downtown appreciate a lot more so it’s truly like winning the lottery - you own the HDB and it sells at market rates. Lately govt has been trying to slow price growth while not blowing up people’s investments - Singapore 99 year lease on land is getting to the halfway point and people are left in limbo - will my HDB be worth $0 in 40 years? Or will I get an extension? En bloc development? Some people are gambling that it won’t go to zero and govt is publicly stating that for most people it will.
wahern 5y ago
> the city could make money directly from housing rental Unfortunately SF doesn't have a good track record in this regard judging by the Midtown Park Apartment fiasco: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Residents-of-S-F-owned-apartments-balk-at-rent-6443518.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Residents-of-S-F... I too think a Singapore-style development model would be worthwhile trying. That is, subsidizing development of housing that would eventually be sold and transferred to tenants, with or without restrictions such as market value percentage caps on resale, stricter rent controls if leased out, etc. It's almost the only viable way forward because there's simply not enough public funds, now or ever, to make a dent in the supply problem without leveraging private financing. That's the beauty of the Singapore model. But for various practical (e.g. management expertise) and legal (difficult to constitutionally restrict the benefit to pre-existing city residents only) problems, to do this at scale would probably require the joint efforts of the Federal government, state, and city. Or perhaps some billionaires would be willing to step forth to try the experiment themselves, rolling property sale revenues into new projects. Ultimately, though, this doesn't solve the NIMBY problem. And if you can solve that problem, there's less need and pressure for attempting big experiments like this.
- EdwinLarkin 5y ago
  Singapore style development model is a nice theory but it does not work. It's exploitative in nature and gets its revenue by churning through thousands of immigrants that have no access to HDB.

refurb 5y ago

Singapore’s HDB system has its own set of problems. And don’t get me wrong, it did an amazing job of housing it’s population, but it has gaps. - govt had a surplus of units in the 90’s (Asian financial crisis) so moved to a “buyers put down money then we’ll build”. As such there is a 5 year wait for new HDBs, a lottery system and lots of disappointed young adults - HDB lottery means you might end up with an HDB downtown (win!) or way on the outskirts (ok). The ones downtown appreciate a lot more so it’s truly like winning the lottery - you own the HDB and it sells at market rates. Lately govt has been trying to slow price growth while not blowing up people’s investments - Singapore 99 year lease on land is getting to the halfway point and people are left in limbo - will my HDB be worth $0 in 40 years? Or will I get an extension? En bloc development? Some people are gambling that it won’t go to zero and govt is publicly stating that for most people it will.

wahern 5y ago

> the city could make money directly from housing rental Unfortunately SF doesn't have a good track record in this regard judging by the Midtown Park Apartment fiasco: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Residents-of-S-F-owned-apartments-balk-at-rent-6443518.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Residents-of-S-F... I too think a Singapore-style development model would be worthwhile trying. That is, subsidizing development of housing that would eventually be sold and transferred to tenants, with or without restrictions such as market value percentage caps on resale, stricter rent controls if leased out, etc. It's almost the only viable way forward because there's simply not enough public funds, now or ever, to make a dent in the supply problem without leveraging private financing. That's the beauty of the Singapore model. But for various practical (e.g. management expertise) and legal (difficult to constitutionally restrict the benefit to pre-existing city residents only) problems, to do this at scale would probably require the joint efforts of the Federal government, state, and city. Or perhaps some billionaires would be willing to step forth to try the experiment themselves, rolling property sale revenues into new projects. Ultimately, though, this doesn't solve the NIMBY problem. And if you can solve that problem, there's less need and pressure for attempting big experiments like this.

EdwinLarkin 5y ago
Singapore style development model is a nice theory but it does not work. It's exploitative in nature and gets its revenue by churning through thousands of immigrants that have no access to HDB.