4 ms·

> The former results in some members of a favoured class getting cheap access to housing, whilst preserving/increasing the value of the remaining 'market rate'

> The former results in some members of a favoured class getting cheap access to housing, whilst preserving/increasing the value of the remaining 'market rate' housing. To clarify, the favored class here are people at or near the poverty line? And their existence drives up prices for anybody else?

rahimnathwani 5y ago
Not necessarily people near the poverty line. You could be earning 6 figures and still be eligible. There's a lottery system which is 'fair' for some definition of fair, but doesn't solve the problem, which is limited housing supply, and doesn't help all who want to live here.
- newbie789 5y ago
  That’s awful that the supply is so small. It would be great if there was a big enough supply of affordable housing such that they could do away with the unfair lottery.
  - rahimnathwani 5y ago
    A big enough supply of ANY housing would make housing affordable. 'Affordable' isn't an intrinsic property of a house. It's an outcome of the allocation system.
    - newbie789 5y ago
      I assumed that “affordable” was an intrinsic property of a house in that it’s an objective number (cost) assigned to a property. Again it’s awful that there is a housing shortage, but “market rate” seems to mean “charges more than what would be considered to be ‘affordable’”. I could be wrong but I’m pretty sure that “more than affordable” and “more affordable” aren’t the same thing. Edit: I’m not really sure why I can’t respond to the child’s comment from this but I apologize. I thought we were talking about housing (eg a house one can afford vs a house that one cannot), not the minutiae of the English language. To clarify, I’m asking about housing that lower income people can move into vs other types of housing. I have zero interest in litigating “intrinsic vs extrinsic” on a topic as simple and self-obvious as “who gets to live in SF”
      - rahimnathwani 5y ago
        You and I may be using these words differently: - intrinsic (vs. extrinsic) - price (vs. cost) And your wording (like the use of the word 'charges') may suggest that you consider that suppliers of housing unilaterally set prices. When, in fact, a transaction can take place only when a buyer and a seller can agree on a price.
        newbie789 5y ago
        Sorry, for some reason it took a long time before I was granted the ability to respond to this particular post (30min+ afaik). I’ve included my response to this post in an edit to the comment you’ve responded to.
qwhelan 5y ago
Also political activists who know how the lottery system works far better than the rest of the population: https://apnews.com/article/cad8b58711d54b178660a0ce379288a4 https://apnews.com/article/cad8b58711d54b178660a0ce379288a4

rahimnathwani 5y ago

Not necessarily people near the poverty line. You could be earning 6 figures and still be eligible. There's a lottery system which is 'fair' for some definition of fair, but doesn't solve the problem, which is limited housing supply, and doesn't help all who want to live here.

newbie789 5y ago
That’s awful that the supply is so small. It would be great if there was a big enough supply of affordable housing such that they could do away with the unfair lottery.
- rahimnathwani 5y ago
  A big enough supply of ANY housing would make housing affordable. 'Affordable' isn't an intrinsic property of a house. It's an outcome of the allocation system.
  - newbie789 5y ago
    I assumed that “affordable” was an intrinsic property of a house in that it’s an objective number (cost) assigned to a property. Again it’s awful that there is a housing shortage, but “market rate” seems to mean “charges more than what would be considered to be ‘affordable’”. I could be wrong but I’m pretty sure that “more than affordable” and “more affordable” aren’t the same thing. Edit: I’m not really sure why I can’t respond to the child’s comment from this but I apologize. I thought we were talking about housing (eg a house one can afford vs a house that one cannot), not the minutiae of the English language. To clarify, I’m asking about housing that lower income people can move into vs other types of housing. I have zero interest in litigating “intrinsic vs extrinsic” on a topic as simple and self-obvious as “who gets to live in SF”
    - rahimnathwani 5y ago
      You and I may be using these words differently: - intrinsic (vs. extrinsic) - price (vs. cost) And your wording (like the use of the word 'charges') may suggest that you consider that suppliers of housing unilaterally set prices. When, in fact, a transaction can take place only when a buyer and a seller can agree on a price.
      - newbie789 5y ago
        Sorry, for some reason it took a long time before I was granted the ability to respond to this particular post (30min+ afaik). I’ve included my response to this post in an edit to the comment you’ve responded to.

qwhelan 5y ago

Also political activists who know how the lottery system works far better than the rest of the population: https://apnews.com/article/cad8b58711d54b178660a0ce379288a4 https://apnews.com/article/cad8b58711d54b178660a0ce379288a4