4 ms·

It would be much better to have affordable housing for all instead of the wealthy pricing out the ordinary.

adamnemecek 13y ago
Can you really blame Google for this though? Seems a bit misplaced.
PeterisP 13y ago
Correction, 'affordable housing for some not all' is what's implied here - there's not enough housing for all, and the only way it's going to stay affordable, given the current housing policy, is if all the googlers get kicked out of the place for good.
- semiel 13y ago
  The fact that there is not enough housing is a convention, not a domain constraint.
  - PeterisP 13y ago
    In any case, if they want affordable housing, the only proper way is to fight for increased supply of housing, not reduce demand of housing by using violence to drive people away.
Pxtl 13y ago
In that case they should be smashing windows at City Hall (or not anywhere, preferably). The municipality must be up to its gills in property tax cash and is the only people who can properly manage the response to this skyrocketing demand for housing. This isn't Vancouver or Tokyo or Manhattan, there's room to build more housing and drive down the supply/demand imbalance, and money to be made doing it... but without the municipality leading the way on intensification, it's not going to get better.
- jaibot 13y ago
  I believe a referendum to allow for some new housing to be built was voted down "because it would drive rents up". Sigh.
- cbhl 13y ago
  I don't see that happening unless the people who already own property in the city suddenly decide en masse that they're okay with repealing laws that prevent you from building tall apartment complexes to preserve the "look" of the city.
  - PeterisP 13y ago
    As far as I recall, the power to decide how things should be rests with all the people, not just the landlords. The renters outnumber them, and they have the ability, the rights and the reason to achieve cheaper rents by allowing to build apartment complexes.
    - cbhl 13y ago
      True, but a renter is also disincentivized to vote for allowing people to build apartment complexes because of NIMBYism -- they don't want to be kicked out of their current living arrangements so that someone can spend 6 months building a new apartment complex in its place that might have lower rent. The people who would unabashedly vote for the repeal such laws would likely be the people who don't live in SF yet but who want to live/move there.
      - simoncion 13y ago
        If the existing tenants scream loudly enough, they can get a deal hammered out: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SAN-FRANCISCO-Deal-protects-tenants-of-Trinity-2627551.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SAN-FRANCISCO-Deal-pro... I'm not sure what those several hundred people who were living there were doing for housing while construction was underway, though. Maybe the "moving expenses" that the landlord covered included assistance with locating new temporary places to live?

Can you really blame Google for this though? Seems a bit misplaced.

Correction, 'affordable housing for some not all' is what's implied here - there's not enough housing for all, and the only way it's going to stay affordable, given the current housing policy, is if all the googlers get kicked out of the place for good.

semiel 13y ago
The fact that there is not enough housing is a convention, not a domain constraint.
- PeterisP 13y ago
  In any case, if they want affordable housing, the only proper way is to fight for increased supply of housing, not reduce demand of housing by using violence to drive people away.

Pxtl 13y ago

In that case they should be smashing windows at City Hall (or not anywhere, preferably). The municipality must be up to its gills in property tax cash and is the only people who can properly manage the response to this skyrocketing demand for housing. This isn't Vancouver or Tokyo or Manhattan, there's room to build more housing and drive down the supply/demand imbalance, and money to be made doing it... but without the municipality leading the way on intensification, it's not going to get better.

jaibot 13y ago
I believe a referendum to allow for some new housing to be built was voted down "because it would drive rents up". Sigh.
cbhl 13y ago
I don't see that happening unless the people who already own property in the city suddenly decide en masse that they're okay with repealing laws that prevent you from building tall apartment complexes to preserve the "look" of the city.
- PeterisP 13y ago
  As far as I recall, the power to decide how things should be rests with all the people, not just the landlords. The renters outnumber them, and they have the ability, the rights and the reason to achieve cheaper rents by allowing to build apartment complexes.
  - cbhl 13y ago
    True, but a renter is also disincentivized to vote for allowing people to build apartment complexes because of NIMBYism -- they don't want to be kicked out of their current living arrangements so that someone can spend 6 months building a new apartment complex in its place that might have lower rent. The people who would unabashedly vote for the repeal such laws would likely be the people who don't live in SF yet but who want to live/move there.
    - simoncion 13y ago
      If the existing tenants scream loudly enough, they can get a deal hammered out: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SAN-FRANCISCO-Deal-protects-tenants-of-Trinity-2627551.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SAN-FRANCISCO-Deal-pro... I'm not sure what those several hundred people who were living there were doing for housing while construction was underway, though. Maybe the "moving expenses" that the landlord covered included assistance with locating new temporary places to live?