2 ms·
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 yo
by 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 agoAs 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 agoTrue, 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 agoIf 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?