5 ms·

The city is free to mandate subsidized housing ratios in the neighborhoods it is worried about becoming gentrified. Maybe it doesn't because it wants the prope

by npinguy 13y ago

The city is free to mandate subsidized housing ratios in the neighborhoods it is worried about becoming gentrified. Maybe it doesn't because it wants the property tax revenue from the highly paid tech employees that live in these neighborhoods but don't use as many of the city services (including, most evidently, the public transport). This is like the OPPOSITE of what Wal-Mart is infamous for - paying their employees as little as they can, and forcing them to depend on millions of dollars of federal subsidies like food stamps to actually make ends meet. Gentrification is a real social concern that needs careful but focused solutions. But it is a goddamn travesty that all the discussion is focused on "Google" (really all Silicon Valley tech companies that are doing this stuff), and the employees that have the audacity of being highly skilled, highly desired, and are willing to put up with a long commute to stay in the city. They pay city taxes, they put money into the local economy, and they're the enemy? And don't give me the garbage that they spend all their time at the company offices. If that was the case, they'd just live in the valley and save on rent. They live in San Fran because they want to spend money on the things that you can do in San Fran that you can't do in the suburban sprawl hell that is the valley. This isn't a "99%" thing. Everyone involved here is in the 99%.

temp42564356 13y ago
> The city is free to mandate subsidized housing ratios in the neighborhoods it is worried about becoming gentrified. Subsidized housing doesn't prevent gentrification, it just shifts rental profits from landlords to subletters, while depriving the city of tax income on the market value of the housing. > Gentrification is a real social concern Why? Why is it that nobody bemaons the pricing of gucci watches or belgian caviar or first class airline seats, but as soon as it's "living in one of the most desirable neighboods in the world", all reason has to go out the window? Clearly not everyone who wants to live in San Francisco can live in San Francisco, why aren't we talking about the millions of people in (for example) Somalia who are being prevented from moving to Mission Hill by gentrification? Why is it just those who by accident of history decided to rent (which by it's very nature is temporary occupancy) in SF that need to be now subsidized?
- waqf 13y ago
  Right. I also failed to invest in SF real estate, everyone should subsidize me too.
  - WalterSear 13y ago
    I invested in SF real estate (bought a house), and I'm pretty much even after 10 over years here. The parts of the city that aren't fashionable haven't seen a meteoric rise in prices: people aren't being pushed out of SF, they are being pushed out of hipster SF.
- eevilspock 13y ago
  All you libertarians aren't real libertarians unless you honestly answer the points raised by Geolibertarianism and Georgism. You should google both of those terms, but here's a good primer: http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html Another way to think about it is this: If you believe in the free market and it's ability to find the "right" price for everything, even the abstract (e.g. the time value of money), then how can you support a government enforced system that allows a finite amount of money to purchase an infinite amount of something, which is what ownership of land in perpetuity amounts to. Property taxes are a weak proxy for the time value of land, and is not determined by the free market. If we want a true free market, all land should belong to the commons, and we have a free market of long term leases. The proceeds go to the community pot (e.g. pay for government services, or checks sent to every person). Gentrification thus costs the gentrifiers and pays those who lose out. Please read the above link and understand the arguments before responding to my claims in this paragraph.
  - temp42564356 13y ago
    > All you libertarians aren't real libertarians I'm not a "real" libertarian; I am neither a child nor a sociopath. > If we want a true free market, all land should belong to the commons, and we have a free market of long term leases. The proceeds go to the community pot (e.g. pay for government services, or checks sent to every person). Gentrification thus costs the gentrifiers and pays those who lose out I'm fine with that. Seriously. I'd even send checks to the poor bastards in Somolia. I mean it's a shitty world where I make a lifetime of money every month because I was born white, male, American, and am autistically brilliant at telling comptuers what to do, while other people die of malnutrion. What I have a MAJOR problem with, is people who rent in San Francisco, and thus insulated themselves from real-estate downside risks, but now that upside risks are impacting them, want bailouts. "But I'm special, I live in San Francisco, I'm a unique snowflake that deserves to pay only $600/mo for a $2,600/mo apartment because eveyone else is so rich and I'm so poor and lattes are so expensive!" (And yes, I do donate to charity, and I don't write that money off on my taxes, as I don' think that charity should displace the obligation of a government toward its citizens)
rayiner 13y ago
Every time I read anything complaining about gentrification in San Francisco, I think about this: http://seattletransitblog.com/2012/04/01/city-looks-to-detroit-baltimore-for-solutions-to-gentrification http://seattletransitblog.com/2012/04/01/city-looks-to-detro... ("On a recent fact finding mission to both cities, council members and staff met with officials from Detroit and Baltimore to learn from the nation’s leaders in combating gentrification."). Gentrification is a good thing. You can't do all of the liberal shit San Francisco's municipal government wants to do without a bunch of "2%" types whose taxes can bankroll the whole endeavor. You lose your tax base, and you turn into Detroit or Camden, NJ, and then its game over. If you're a municipal government, 90% of your energies should be spent figuring out how to get businesses and wealthier people to move into and stay in your city. Without the tax base, your great ideas for everything else are totally irrelevant.
jseliger 13y ago
Gentrification is a real social concern that needs careful but focused solutions Not really: Up until the Petaluma City Plan was found legal in the 1970s (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petaluma,_California#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petaluma,_California#History for more) and the growth of height-limit acts in major cities, places that experienced growth built more buildings to accommodate new residents, so prices stayed (relatively) low for most people moving to a given locale. We're seeing the end game of extreme supply restrictions in popular major urban areas: very high prices as increasing demand hits limited supply. The solution is to increase supply, but SF has mostly chosen not to do this: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/10/san-francisco-exodus/7205/ http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/10/san-francis... .
- muzz 13y ago
  Are you unaware of the record building that is going on in San Francisco?
  - jquery 13y ago
    It's still not even close to market demand. I'm a homeowner in San Francisco. The market is telling me to bulldoze my house and build a 10-story condominium. Hell would freeze over before I'd be allowed to do that.
  - erikpukinskis 13y ago
    Is it building that increases density or just remodeling?

by npinguy 13y ago

temp42564356 13y ago

> The city is free to mandate subsidized housing ratios in the neighborhoods it is worried about becoming gentrified. Subsidized housing doesn't prevent gentrification, it just shifts rental profits from landlords to subletters, while depriving the city of tax income on the market value of the housing. > Gentrification is a real social concern Why? Why is it that nobody bemaons the pricing of gucci watches or belgian caviar or first class airline seats, but as soon as it's "living in one of the most desirable neighboods in the world", all reason has to go out the window? Clearly not everyone who wants to live in San Francisco can live in San Francisco, why aren't we talking about the millions of people in (for example) Somalia who are being prevented from moving to Mission Hill by gentrification? Why is it just those who by accident of history decided to rent (which by it's very nature is temporary occupancy) in SF that need to be now subsidized?

waqf 13y ago
Right. I also failed to invest in SF real estate, everyone should subsidize me too.
- WalterSear 13y ago
  I invested in SF real estate (bought a house), and I'm pretty much even after 10 over years here. The parts of the city that aren't fashionable haven't seen a meteoric rise in prices: people aren't being pushed out of SF, they are being pushed out of hipster SF.
eevilspock 13y ago
All you libertarians aren't real libertarians unless you honestly answer the points raised by Geolibertarianism and Georgism. You should google both of those terms, but here's a good primer: http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html Another way to think about it is this: If you believe in the free market and it's ability to find the "right" price for everything, even the abstract (e.g. the time value of money), then how can you support a government enforced system that allows a finite amount of money to purchase an infinite amount of something, which is what ownership of land in perpetuity amounts to. Property taxes are a weak proxy for the time value of land, and is not determined by the free market. If we want a true free market, all land should belong to the commons, and we have a free market of long term leases. The proceeds go to the community pot (e.g. pay for government services, or checks sent to every person). Gentrification thus costs the gentrifiers and pays those who lose out. Please read the above link and understand the arguments before responding to my claims in this paragraph.
- temp42564356 13y ago
  > All you libertarians aren't real libertarians I'm not a "real" libertarian; I am neither a child nor a sociopath. > If we want a true free market, all land should belong to the commons, and we have a free market of long term leases. The proceeds go to the community pot (e.g. pay for government services, or checks sent to every person). Gentrification thus costs the gentrifiers and pays those who lose out I'm fine with that. Seriously. I'd even send checks to the poor bastards in Somolia. I mean it's a shitty world where I make a lifetime of money every month because I was born white, male, American, and am autistically brilliant at telling comptuers what to do, while other people die of malnutrion. What I have a MAJOR problem with, is people who rent in San Francisco, and thus insulated themselves from real-estate downside risks, but now that upside risks are impacting them, want bailouts. "But I'm special, I live in San Francisco, I'm a unique snowflake that deserves to pay only $600/mo for a $2,600/mo apartment because eveyone else is so rich and I'm so poor and lattes are so expensive!" (And yes, I do donate to charity, and I don't write that money off on my taxes, as I don' think that charity should displace the obligation of a government toward its citizens)

rayiner 13y ago

Every time I read anything complaining about gentrification in San Francisco, I think about this: http://seattletransitblog.com/2012/04/01/city-looks-to-detroit-baltimore-for-solutions-to-gentrification http://seattletransitblog.com/2012/04/01/city-looks-to-detro... ("On a recent fact finding mission to both cities, council members and staff met with officials from Detroit and Baltimore to learn from the nation’s leaders in combating gentrification."). Gentrification is a good thing. You can't do all of the liberal shit San Francisco's municipal government wants to do without a bunch of "2%" types whose taxes can bankroll the whole endeavor. You lose your tax base, and you turn into Detroit or Camden, NJ, and then its game over. If you're a municipal government, 90% of your energies should be spent figuring out how to get businesses and wealthier people to move into and stay in your city. Without the tax base, your great ideas for everything else are totally irrelevant.

jseliger 13y ago

Gentrification is a real social concern that needs careful but focused solutions Not really: Up until the Petaluma City Plan was found legal in the 1970s (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petaluma,_California#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petaluma,_California#History for more) and the growth of height-limit acts in major cities, places that experienced growth built more buildings to accommodate new residents, so prices stayed (relatively) low for most people moving to a given locale. We're seeing the end game of extreme supply restrictions in popular major urban areas: very high prices as increasing demand hits limited supply. The solution is to increase supply, but SF has mostly chosen not to do this: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/10/san-francisco-exodus/7205/ http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/10/san-francis... .

muzz 13y ago
Are you unaware of the record building that is going on in San Francisco?
- jquery 13y ago
  It's still not even close to market demand. I'm a homeowner in San Francisco. The market is telling me to bulldoze my house and build a 10-story condominium. Hell would freeze over before I'd be allowed to do that.
- erikpukinskis 13y ago
  Is it building that increases density or just remodeling?