4 ms·

You're right that they don't own their home. The key is that they feel entitled to living there anyway, as the commie leftists whose ideology defines the city's

You're right that they don't own their home. The key is that they feel entitled to living there anyway, as the commie leftists whose ideology defines the city's politics do not respect capital, like the capital that goes into building homes, or the right of the owner of that capital to make a profit. Rather, the landlord is treated as an invalid actor and a cartoonish villain. That's why there's rent control, it's also why the housing stock is so poorly maintained, and one important reason why no one's built middle-class housing in the city for decades (though other anti-development sentiment also exists).

dylandrop 13y ago
Right, so everyone who is in opposition to Google is a "commie leftist". What, is this McCarthyist America again?
- adharmad 13y ago
  McCarthysism involved persecution. I think what the OP is saying is that people who oppose Google are also opposing the rights of landlords and other renters to get into free agreements. The fair market price of apartments in SF has been kept artificially low via legislation and gradually this is changing.
  - dylandrop 13y ago
    My objection is his use of the term "commie leftist", using a tactic that undermines the credibility of these people's concerns analogous to the sentiments Red Scare. Of course he isn't persecuting them, but he's using the term "commie leftist" as a derogatory scare tactic. If he wants to be taken seriously he should avoid using those terms in that manner.
- fennecfoxen 13y ago
  More like "San Francisco, for historical reasons related to the 1960s and the Summer of Love, is a city which has attracted and retained a substantial number of people whose culture of political beliefs dictate that the community ought to have substantial influence over a variety of processes, such as the process of obtaining housing. They believe that this control will help effect social justice. As a result of this world view, these people have reacted to the influence of Google and other technology companies by protesting it and its employees. Central to the protests is the fact that said employees are willing and able to pay more for apartments (and other services) than the protestors would like, thus inhibiting the ability of the protestors (or people the protestors sympathize with) to obtain apartments or services for a low price. Moreover, these protestors substantially comprise the set of individuals who have engaged in such protests." I am aware of people who are opposed to Google for other reasons - e.g. privacy advocates. I am not aware of substantial numbers of them engaging in anti-Google-bus protests in San Francisco; their protests have different characteristics. And yes, I called them both "leftist" and "commie". I contend that this summary is accurate, and that many of these protestors would gladly admit to embracing leftism and either support or express sympathy for communism. As the US remains substantially a free country, these are positions that they may legitimately hold while remaining political actors, regardless of the accuracy of the world-view that these actors hold, and regardless of the potential negative impact of these policies if implemented. If you're really interested in people who are impugning others as invalid political actors, you should complain about Cuomo and Bill de Blasio for overtly saying that conservatives aren't welcome in the state of New York.
  - dylandrop 13y ago
    All we know about the Google protestors (as a collective) is that they're opposed to increasing housing prices which make it difficult for them to continue living where they used to live. There's nothing to suggest that this is a communist movement: you're making a generalization, and making unbacked generalizations is never helpful, it only leads to divisiveness. You're using the term as a derogatory statement and a scare tactic, and your point would be stronger without it. Also, using the argument "Oh politicians do it, so that means it's okay for me to do it" is a pretty slippery slope.
brenschluss 13y ago
one important reason why no one's built middle-class housing in the city for decades You think that the lack of middle-class housing is because of commie leftists? Really? This makes no economic sense - maybe review some of your logic? I live in NYC, where the lack of middle-class housing is because real estate developers flock towards luxury residential condominiums (oriented towards the upper class), since that's the ideal way to maximize IRR. I would maintain that a healthy regulation of capital usage creates a healthy middle class. I offer you to suggest coherent arguments otherwise.
- fennecfoxen 13y ago
  > You think that the lack of middle-class housing is because of commie leftists? Really? This makes no economic sense Of course it makes economic sense. Commie leftists empowered by the legislature brought you rent control. Rent control means onerous limitations on what the property-owner can do with the property, directly reducing his ability to earn money off it and reducing the incentives to build new apartments. It's a wealth transfer from landlords to tenants, and no one invests in anything with the goal of having their wealth transferred away. Granted, it's certainly not the only thing that stands in the way of new development (but I already mentioned that). Impeding new development means less housing overall, which in turn means more-expensive housing for everyone. -- But you live in New York. New York City's own flirtations with rent control under the War Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1943 are even better studied. Yes, the war emergency is WWII. Yes, that law still governs rent control in New York. (Yes, the DeBlasio would like to see more rent control in more places in practice, as well). And yes, it was destructive. Hell, it's the textbook case -- literally, dozens of Intro-to-Econ textbooks. At one point in the 1970s the Department of Buildings noted that over one-third of the buildings in Harlem had abandoned by their landlords. You may also be familiar with the Bronx, burning. If the first paragraph by itself is too tendentious for you, I can also offer you information on the consensus of economists. If you think Milton Friedman and Fredrick Hayek are too capitalist, maybe I could quote Gunnar Myrdal -- a chief architect of Sweden's welfare state. "Rent control has in certain Western countries constituted, maybe, the worst example of poor planning by governments lacking courage and vision." Or Assar Lindbeck, noted socialist: "In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing." I will also refer you to papers like Alson, Kearl and Vaughn's "Is There a Consensus Among Economists in the 1990’s?" and Block and Walker's "Entropy in the Canadian Economics Profession: Sampling Consensus on the Major Issues". 93% of the American economists and 95% of Canadian economists endorsed the statement that "a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available." IN SUMMARY. To deny that rent control is destructive is as intelligent and scientific a statement as endorsing homeopathy, saying vaccines cause autism, and that global warming is caused primarily by sunspots: It's a false statement that is at odds with the scientific consensus, and it leads to destructive public policies.
rhizome31 13y ago
Poe's Law at work here.

dylandrop 13y ago

Right, so everyone who is in opposition to Google is a "commie leftist". What, is this McCarthyist America again?

adharmad 13y ago
McCarthysism involved persecution. I think what the OP is saying is that people who oppose Google are also opposing the rights of landlords and other renters to get into free agreements. The fair market price of apartments in SF has been kept artificially low via legislation and gradually this is changing.
- dylandrop 13y ago
  My objection is his use of the term "commie leftist", using a tactic that undermines the credibility of these people's concerns analogous to the sentiments Red Scare. Of course he isn't persecuting them, but he's using the term "commie leftist" as a derogatory scare tactic. If he wants to be taken seriously he should avoid using those terms in that manner.
fennecfoxen 13y ago
More like "San Francisco, for historical reasons related to the 1960s and the Summer of Love, is a city which has attracted and retained a substantial number of people whose culture of political beliefs dictate that the community ought to have substantial influence over a variety of processes, such as the process of obtaining housing. They believe that this control will help effect social justice. As a result of this world view, these people have reacted to the influence of Google and other technology companies by protesting it and its employees. Central to the protests is the fact that said employees are willing and able to pay more for apartments (and other services) than the protestors would like, thus inhibiting the ability of the protestors (or people the protestors sympathize with) to obtain apartments or services for a low price. Moreover, these protestors substantially comprise the set of individuals who have engaged in such protests." I am aware of people who are opposed to Google for other reasons - e.g. privacy advocates. I am not aware of substantial numbers of them engaging in anti-Google-bus protests in San Francisco; their protests have different characteristics. And yes, I called them both "leftist" and "commie". I contend that this summary is accurate, and that many of these protestors would gladly admit to embracing leftism and either support or express sympathy for communism. As the US remains substantially a free country, these are positions that they may legitimately hold while remaining political actors, regardless of the accuracy of the world-view that these actors hold, and regardless of the potential negative impact of these policies if implemented. If you're really interested in people who are impugning others as invalid political actors, you should complain about Cuomo and Bill de Blasio for overtly saying that conservatives aren't welcome in the state of New York.
- dylandrop 13y ago
  All we know about the Google protestors (as a collective) is that they're opposed to increasing housing prices which make it difficult for them to continue living where they used to live. There's nothing to suggest that this is a communist movement: you're making a generalization, and making unbacked generalizations is never helpful, it only leads to divisiveness. You're using the term as a derogatory statement and a scare tactic, and your point would be stronger without it. Also, using the argument "Oh politicians do it, so that means it's okay for me to do it" is a pretty slippery slope.

brenschluss 13y ago

one important reason why no one's built middle-class housing in the city for decades You think that the lack of middle-class housing is because of commie leftists? Really? This makes no economic sense - maybe review some of your logic? I live in NYC, where the lack of middle-class housing is because real estate developers flock towards luxury residential condominiums (oriented towards the upper class), since that's the ideal way to maximize IRR. I would maintain that a healthy regulation of capital usage creates a healthy middle class. I offer you to suggest coherent arguments otherwise.

fennecfoxen 13y ago
> You think that the lack of middle-class housing is because of commie leftists? Really? This makes no economic sense Of course it makes economic sense. Commie leftists empowered by the legislature brought you rent control. Rent control means onerous limitations on what the property-owner can do with the property, directly reducing his ability to earn money off it and reducing the incentives to build new apartments. It's a wealth transfer from landlords to tenants, and no one invests in anything with the goal of having their wealth transferred away. Granted, it's certainly not the only thing that stands in the way of new development (but I already mentioned that). Impeding new development means less housing overall, which in turn means more-expensive housing for everyone. -- But you live in New York. New York City's own flirtations with rent control under the War Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1943 are even better studied. Yes, the war emergency is WWII. Yes, that law still governs rent control in New York. (Yes, the DeBlasio would like to see more rent control in more places in practice, as well). And yes, it was destructive. Hell, it's the textbook case -- literally, dozens of Intro-to-Econ textbooks. At one point in the 1970s the Department of Buildings noted that over one-third of the buildings in Harlem had abandoned by their landlords. You may also be familiar with the Bronx, burning. If the first paragraph by itself is too tendentious for you, I can also offer you information on the consensus of economists. If you think Milton Friedman and Fredrick Hayek are too capitalist, maybe I could quote Gunnar Myrdal -- a chief architect of Sweden's welfare state. "Rent control has in certain Western countries constituted, maybe, the worst example of poor planning by governments lacking courage and vision." Or Assar Lindbeck, noted socialist: "In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing." I will also refer you to papers like Alson, Kearl and Vaughn's "Is There a Consensus Among Economists in the 1990’s?" and Block and Walker's "Entropy in the Canadian Economics Profession: Sampling Consensus on the Major Issues". 93% of the American economists and 95% of Canadian economists endorsed the statement that "a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available." IN SUMMARY. To deny that rent control is destructive is as intelligent and scientific a statement as endorsing homeopathy, saying vaccines cause autism, and that global warming is caused primarily by sunspots: It's a false statement that is at odds with the scientific consensus, and it leads to destructive public policies.

rhizome31 13y ago

Poe's Law at work here.