4 ms·

Again, I agree that we likely need to build more housing. But when you're living in a "humanitarian crisis", leaving empty units empty is a luxury which we curr

by abeppu 5y ago

Again, I agree that we likely need to build more housing. But when you're living in a "humanitarian crisis", leaving empty units empty is a luxury which we currently choose to permit. But that choice isn't mandatory, and it does reflect on us. If a property hasn't sold for months, why _shouldn't_ someone be able to live in it? Some units listed for rent remain listed for an extended period. I lived across from a unit which was empty for more than 18 months. It was listed at substantially above market, and the landlord was just being picky. Should it remain her prerogative to leave it empty until she finds the tenant of her dreams if in the meantime people's lives may be threatened by living without shelter? Maybe the answer is yes. Maybe you think the rights of a property owner to make decisions about how they will profit from their property is more important than all the other considerations, including risks to life. Is it yes for all such goods in short supply? When hospitals didn't have ventilators, if you had functional ventilators unused and in storage, would it have been ethical to let them remain there? Should it have been legal? These are all choices. And currently we choose to privilege rights of property owners above a human right to shelter. And when we do build, if we build luxury condos, that's a choice too. If we repeatedly and consistently decide that it's more important that property owners and developers be able to make as much money as they can than for people to be housed, then we've chosen to have a homeless crisis, because we're a homeless crisis kind of people with homeless crisis values. Hooray, we got what we want.

Gigachad 5y ago
The government could forcefully take properties from owners and chuck random people off the street in to them. The majority of these properties will end up ruined. Or the government could build their own housing to use for this purpose. I can tell you which idea would be more popular with voters.
- abeppu 5y ago
  hypothetical public program: "We notice you haven't been able to fill this unit for 6 months. We're going to give you market rate based on the neighborhood and square footage, for this person to live here." property owner: "But what about my right to discriminate of people I don't like the look of?" > The majority of these properties will end up ruined. Show me the ruined apartments from a program that tried this. I'm skeptical because there are supportive housing programs, and the complaint I normally hear is that they don't have nearly enough capacity to meet the real need, not that once residents get placed they "ruin" their units. > Or the government could build their own housing to use for this purpose. I can tell you which idea would be more popular with voters. And show me the many many public housing projects we've built because public housing is so popular. In SF, neighborhoods have a pretty consistent track record of fighting back against any housing that doesn't increase their comps. Note that mostly there aren't actually public housing projects for them to push back against, but rather projects from non-profits like TNDC or Mission Housing.
  - simonsarris 5y ago
    > Show me the ruined apartments from a program that tried this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabrini%E2%80%93Green_Homes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabrini%E2%80%93Green_Homes
    - Gigachad 5y ago
      This looks like a nightmare. The problem is if you gather all of the lowest people in one building, it becomes hell on earth. But if you disperse them, you have a building full of decent people and one person who writes tags on the hallways and leaves trash around. So the rest of the building rightfully wants that one individual kicked out and you end up at homelessness again. You also have no leverage against these people. For normal people you can threaten them with fines, etc. But for some people, they have nothing to lose and do not care about any punishment you apply.
  - pandaman 5y ago
    Yeah, about that, we've noticed that in your household there are 160 square feet of area available per person currently on the lease and the People's Housing Commission established through Science that no person needs more than 50 square feet to live. Make sure you do not waste living space by getting more roommates, if you are unable to find more roommates in 6 months time the PHC is going to give you roommates.
RC_ITR 5y ago
I think you're missing a few things here. 1) Literally any real estate market is going to have vacancies, because otherwise how would people move between spaces? 2) The question is 'what percentage of vacancies is too high?' Given the EXTREME carrying cost of owning an unoccupied home in SF, I think it's highly unlikely that SF is 'too high'. You neighbor may have had the wealth to pay that cost, but few others do. 3) 'Luxury' housing in SF does two things: house yuppies that would otherwise move to historic neighborhoods 2) turn into shitty non-luxury housing in 30 years. This idea that the fucking NEMA or whatever won't be a relatively low-rent building (a la Fox Plaza) in 20 years is not grounded in thoughtfulness. 4) The real 'villains' are property owners who want the value of their house to go up (as an investment). And what do those people hate more than anything? New construction that is more desirable than their home. WE HAVE A HOMELESS CRISIS BECAUSE THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH HOMES, DRIVEN BY THE FACT THAT THE RESIDENTS OF SF LIKE HAVING EXPENSIVE HOMES. You can spin it any way you want, but it's the truth and if you don't watch out, the same thing is coming for you in your town, because SF is just ahead of everywhere else, not on a different path.
- abeppu 5y ago
  > Literally any real estate market is going to have vacancies, because otherwise how would people move between spaces? Take the building at 2100 Market, which was formerly run by Sonder. They took out a 5 year lease, the pandemic hit, they tried to sue to get out of it, and the whole thing has been empty for more than a year. I don't know how many units it is, but a lot of people could have been housed for that period. I have walked by that building, and homeless people in close proximity for _so long_. Yes, I find it about as offensive as feces. I'm not claiming no unit should ever be vacant for a week. I'm claiming the scope of wasted livable space is comparable to the size of the problem, and that even at market rates could often be cheaper than the ridiculous things we're doing. Again, $60k/year per _tent site_ in a parking lot. > The question is 'what percentage of vacancies is too high?' No, I think the question is "What do we value?", or perhaps "what's our indifference curve between people living on the street and owners choosing to keep their units empty?" If we weren't in a homeless crisis, the vacancies wouldn't be a problem. > Given the EXTREME carrying cost of owning an unoccupied home in SF, I think it's highly unlikely that SF is 'too high'. You neighbor may have had the wealth to pay that cost, but few others do. No, in some cases, people can't afford to fill homes. In late 2019, there were a bunch of condo buildings that were "struggling" to sell, but prices didn't come down -- because bringing down the price on one unit would set the comps for the whole project. My (former) landlord's building is rent-controlled. I think part of the calculus was to hope that rents increased and long term getting a tenant in at the higher rate would be much more valuable. When the pandemic cause prices to drop, she doubled down; taking a discount tenant is worse than having no tenant. Even before the pandemic we saw this all over the city with retail spaces too; places can be left empty for years because the hypothetical future revenue from a vacant space is valued more highly than actual revenue from a tenant today. We seem to feel that property owners speculating is more important than anything that actually happens inside the property. > 'Luxury' housing in SF does two things: house yuppies that would otherwise move to historic neighborhoods 2) turn into shitty non-luxury housing in 30 years. This idea that the fucking NEMA or whatever won't be a relatively low-rent building (a la Fox Plaza) in 20 years is not grounded in thoughtfulness. If you have a homelessness crisis, and you believe that crisis requires building more housing, then I suggest building housing for the homeless is a much more direct solution than building luxury housing for the rich and waiting a generation. Why do people who wouldn't believe in trickle-down economics for income tax policy believe that trickle-down housing makes sense? The other thing luxury housing does in SF is make money for the developers, and for their friends at DBI. > The real 'villains' are property owners who want the value of their house to go up (as an investment). And what do those people hate more than anything? New construction that is more desirable than their home. The real villains are the developers who have so successfully sold the idea that the only way to house the poor is to build and sell more houses to the rich. Similarly, eating at Lazy Bear doesn't somehow make prices go down at Grocery Outlet.

by abeppu 5y ago

Gigachad 5y ago

The government could forcefully take properties from owners and chuck random people off the street in to them. The majority of these properties will end up ruined. Or the government could build their own housing to use for this purpose. I can tell you which idea would be more popular with voters.

abeppu 5y ago
hypothetical public program: "We notice you haven't been able to fill this unit for 6 months. We're going to give you market rate based on the neighborhood and square footage, for this person to live here." property owner: "But what about my right to discriminate of people I don't like the look of?" > The majority of these properties will end up ruined. Show me the ruined apartments from a program that tried this. I'm skeptical because there are supportive housing programs, and the complaint I normally hear is that they don't have nearly enough capacity to meet the real need, not that once residents get placed they "ruin" their units. > Or the government could build their own housing to use for this purpose. I can tell you which idea would be more popular with voters. And show me the many many public housing projects we've built because public housing is so popular. In SF, neighborhoods have a pretty consistent track record of fighting back against any housing that doesn't increase their comps. Note that mostly there aren't actually public housing projects for them to push back against, but rather projects from non-profits like TNDC or Mission Housing.
- simonsarris 5y ago
  > Show me the ruined apartments from a program that tried this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabrini%E2%80%93Green_Homes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabrini%E2%80%93Green_Homes
  - Gigachad 5y ago
    This looks like a nightmare. The problem is if you gather all of the lowest people in one building, it becomes hell on earth. But if you disperse them, you have a building full of decent people and one person who writes tags on the hallways and leaves trash around. So the rest of the building rightfully wants that one individual kicked out and you end up at homelessness again. You also have no leverage against these people. For normal people you can threaten them with fines, etc. But for some people, they have nothing to lose and do not care about any punishment you apply.
- pandaman 5y ago
  Yeah, about that, we've noticed that in your household there are 160 square feet of area available per person currently on the lease and the People's Housing Commission established through Science that no person needs more than 50 square feet to live. Make sure you do not waste living space by getting more roommates, if you are unable to find more roommates in 6 months time the PHC is going to give you roommates.

RC_ITR 5y ago

I think you're missing a few things here. 1) Literally any real estate market is going to have vacancies, because otherwise how would people move between spaces? 2) The question is 'what percentage of vacancies is too high?' Given the EXTREME carrying cost of owning an unoccupied home in SF, I think it's highly unlikely that SF is 'too high'. You neighbor may have had the wealth to pay that cost, but few others do. 3) 'Luxury' housing in SF does two things: house yuppies that would otherwise move to historic neighborhoods 2) turn into shitty non-luxury housing in 30 years. This idea that the fucking NEMA or whatever won't be a relatively low-rent building (a la Fox Plaza) in 20 years is not grounded in thoughtfulness. 4) The real 'villains' are property owners who want the value of their house to go up (as an investment). And what do those people hate more than anything? New construction that is more desirable than their home. WE HAVE A HOMELESS CRISIS BECAUSE THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH HOMES, DRIVEN BY THE FACT THAT THE RESIDENTS OF SF LIKE HAVING EXPENSIVE HOMES. You can spin it any way you want, but it's the truth and if you don't watch out, the same thing is coming for you in your town, because SF is just ahead of everywhere else, not on a different path.

abeppu 5y ago
> Literally any real estate market is going to have vacancies, because otherwise how would people move between spaces? Take the building at 2100 Market, which was formerly run by Sonder. They took out a 5 year lease, the pandemic hit, they tried to sue to get out of it, and the whole thing has been empty for more than a year. I don't know how many units it is, but a lot of people could have been housed for that period. I have walked by that building, and homeless people in close proximity for _so long_. Yes, I find it about as offensive as feces. I'm not claiming no unit should ever be vacant for a week. I'm claiming the scope of wasted livable space is comparable to the size of the problem, and that even at market rates could often be cheaper than the ridiculous things we're doing. Again, $60k/year per _tent site_ in a parking lot. > The question is 'what percentage of vacancies is too high?' No, I think the question is "What do we value?", or perhaps "what's our indifference curve between people living on the street and owners choosing to keep their units empty?" If we weren't in a homeless crisis, the vacancies wouldn't be a problem. > Given the EXTREME carrying cost of owning an unoccupied home in SF, I think it's highly unlikely that SF is 'too high'. You neighbor may have had the wealth to pay that cost, but few others do. No, in some cases, people can't afford to fill homes. In late 2019, there were a bunch of condo buildings that were "struggling" to sell, but prices didn't come down -- because bringing down the price on one unit would set the comps for the whole project. My (former) landlord's building is rent-controlled. I think part of the calculus was to hope that rents increased and long term getting a tenant in at the higher rate would be much more valuable. When the pandemic cause prices to drop, she doubled down; taking a discount tenant is worse than having no tenant. Even before the pandemic we saw this all over the city with retail spaces too; places can be left empty for years because the hypothetical future revenue from a vacant space is valued more highly than actual revenue from a tenant today. We seem to feel that property owners speculating is more important than anything that actually happens inside the property. > 'Luxury' housing in SF does two things: house yuppies that would otherwise move to historic neighborhoods 2) turn into shitty non-luxury housing in 30 years. This idea that the fucking NEMA or whatever won't be a relatively low-rent building (a la Fox Plaza) in 20 years is not grounded in thoughtfulness. If you have a homelessness crisis, and you believe that crisis requires building more housing, then I suggest building housing for the homeless is a much more direct solution than building luxury housing for the rich and waiting a generation. Why do people who wouldn't believe in trickle-down economics for income tax policy believe that trickle-down housing makes sense? The other thing luxury housing does in SF is make money for the developers, and for their friends at DBI. > The real 'villains' are property owners who want the value of their house to go up (as an investment). And what do those people hate more than anything? New construction that is more desirable than their home. The real villains are the developers who have so successfully sold the idea that the only way to house the poor is to build and sell more houses to the rich. Similarly, eating at Lazy Bear doesn't somehow make prices go down at Grocery Outlet.