4 ms·

It's tragic that the SF city government is so set in its ways. There's a lot of people who are priced out of SF because of the city's reluctance to increase ho

It's tragic that the SF city government is so set in its ways. There's a lot of people who are priced out of SF because of the city's reluctance to increase housing stock and to maintain rent control.

205guy 14y ago
War is peace, freedom is slavery, and rent control prices people out of SF. SF has limited space. Price is not the only way to allocate space. Local government can, within limits, set other ways such as rent control (essentially a form of seniority). The local government representatives are democratically elected in seemingly uncorrupt elections, so I have to assume this is the will of the majority of the city residents. Get over it and deal with it.
- qq66 14y ago
  SF has limited space mainly because city homeowners lobby against new building permits. 418 housing units constructed in SF in 2011 -- do you seriously think that in a city with $3000 one-bedroom apartments, there aren't hundreds of real estate developers who would build new units here? The will of the majority is no evidence of fairness or moral rectitude - the will of the majority is what was responsible for slavery, institutional racism, and now marriage inequality.
  - 205guy 14y ago
    I think you have that backwards: city homeowners lobby against new building permits because SF has limited space. They feel their neighborhood is plenty crowded, their views are blocked quite enough, and traffic is already congested, etc. Hundreds of developers at 5-100 units each will significantly change the density and life experience in the city. I was referring to the will of voters as opposed to a cabal of corporations or corrupt influences. Obviously, majorities that impinge on civil rights need to be overruled. It is not a civil right that just because you want to live in the city and you have more money than a current resident, you should be allowed to do so. Nor is it a civil right for a developer to build an oversized and overcrowded building when their property zoning allows a modest residence.
    - qq66 14y ago
      Any right that the government grants to a person impinges upon another right held by someone else. If you grant someone the right to live in a rent-controlled apartment you're forcibly removing the right of the property owner to rent out his/her apartment at any terms. It's not like any of these rights are free, they come at steep costs, and it's hard to say who should actually be the stakeholders of any given decision. Should it be the people owning property in the city? (that's how decisions in condominium buildings are made -- by owner's vote, not by resident's vote). Should it be people living in the city right now? Should it be people who would live in the city if the measure in question was adopted? How much influence should people in one neighborhood have over what happens in another neighborhood (i.e., should there be a neighborhood level of city government, and what powers should it have relative to the city government?) The same set of stakeholder definition issues come up when thinking about granting work visas to a foreign national -- should that individual's desire to work in the United States be part of the decision to let him in, since once you do, he'll be a voting American citizen, or should he not have a say in that decision since he's not yet a citizen?
ondrae 14y ago
Every time the planning department has tried to increase density along the transportation corridors on the west side of the city, the neighborhood groups come out in force against it. We desperately need light rail and five story mixed-use all the way down Geary.
colinhevans 14y ago
San Francisco is the second most densely populated major city in the US after NYC, situated on a 7X7 mile peninsula surrounded by water, with significant numbers of historic buildings and neighborhoods that can't be reasonably torn down and replaced by high density housing. Blaming high rents solely on city officials and rent control overlooks these realities which shape the economics of real estate in the city.
- dredmorbius 14y ago
  There are plenty of buildings which aren't historic and/or really could be torn down regardless. I suspect the next major quake (long overdue) will sort much of this out anyhow.

205guy 14y ago

War is peace, freedom is slavery, and rent control prices people out of SF. SF has limited space. Price is not the only way to allocate space. Local government can, within limits, set other ways such as rent control (essentially a form of seniority). The local government representatives are democratically elected in seemingly uncorrupt elections, so I have to assume this is the will of the majority of the city residents. Get over it and deal with it.

qq66 14y ago
SF has limited space mainly because city homeowners lobby against new building permits. 418 housing units constructed in SF in 2011 -- do you seriously think that in a city with $3000 one-bedroom apartments, there aren't hundreds of real estate developers who would build new units here? The will of the majority is no evidence of fairness or moral rectitude - the will of the majority is what was responsible for slavery, institutional racism, and now marriage inequality.
- 205guy 14y ago
  I think you have that backwards: city homeowners lobby against new building permits because SF has limited space. They feel their neighborhood is plenty crowded, their views are blocked quite enough, and traffic is already congested, etc. Hundreds of developers at 5-100 units each will significantly change the density and life experience in the city. I was referring to the will of voters as opposed to a cabal of corporations or corrupt influences. Obviously, majorities that impinge on civil rights need to be overruled. It is not a civil right that just because you want to live in the city and you have more money than a current resident, you should be allowed to do so. Nor is it a civil right for a developer to build an oversized and overcrowded building when their property zoning allows a modest residence.
  - qq66 14y ago
    Any right that the government grants to a person impinges upon another right held by someone else. If you grant someone the right to live in a rent-controlled apartment you're forcibly removing the right of the property owner to rent out his/her apartment at any terms. It's not like any of these rights are free, they come at steep costs, and it's hard to say who should actually be the stakeholders of any given decision. Should it be the people owning property in the city? (that's how decisions in condominium buildings are made -- by owner's vote, not by resident's vote). Should it be people living in the city right now? Should it be people who would live in the city if the measure in question was adopted? How much influence should people in one neighborhood have over what happens in another neighborhood (i.e., should there be a neighborhood level of city government, and what powers should it have relative to the city government?) The same set of stakeholder definition issues come up when thinking about granting work visas to a foreign national -- should that individual's desire to work in the United States be part of the decision to let him in, since once you do, he'll be a voting American citizen, or should he not have a say in that decision since he's not yet a citizen?

ondrae 14y ago

Every time the planning department has tried to increase density along the transportation corridors on the west side of the city, the neighborhood groups come out in force against it. We desperately need light rail and five story mixed-use all the way down Geary.

colinhevans 14y ago

San Francisco is the second most densely populated major city in the US after NYC, situated on a 7X7 mile peninsula surrounded by water, with significant numbers of historic buildings and neighborhoods that can't be reasonably torn down and replaced by high density housing. Blaming high rents solely on city officials and rent control overlooks these realities which shape the economics of real estate in the city.

dredmorbius 14y ago
There are plenty of buildings which aren't historic and/or really could be torn down regardless. I suspect the next major quake (long overdue) will sort much of this out anyhow.