7 ms·

San Francisco has bigger issues with class/job sector warfare instigated by city politicians. "The tech industry has come like a train wreck into this neighbor

San Francisco has bigger issues with class/job sector warfare instigated by city politicians. "The tech industry has come like a train wreck into this neighborhood and into this city," [0] Theres this backwards mentality purporting the idea that market-rate housing development will drive out long-time residents. In reality, its the lack of market-rate development that leads to tech workers out-bidding low-income families for apartments (especially in areas like the mission). 0: http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/campos-to-propose-moratorium-on-market-rate-housing-in-the-mission/Content?oid=2928953 http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/campos-to-propose-mor...

MBlume 11y ago
So when is David Campos up for reelection? How quickly can we mobilize to eliminate him? ETA: Next year, 2016, so we have about a year and a half.
- capkutay 11y ago
  I don't want to turn this thread into a political debate, but I'll just leave this here: http://www.sfhac.org/stop-the-mission-moratorium/ http://www.sfhac.org/stop-the-mission-moratorium/
- raldi 11y ago
  It takes less than five minutes to register to vote by mail in San Francisco, and doing so means you're a lot more likely to vote, and to do so while carefully reading a voter guide. Here's how: https://www.reddit.com/r/housingforsf/comments/22xoht/help_hfsf_register_to_vote_by_mail_and_tell_us/ https://www.reddit.com/r/housingforsf/comments/22xoht/help_h...
  - patmcguire 11y ago
    And remember: for any position where there's a primary, the Democratic Primary is the election, so if you want to count, register accordingly
    - raldi 11y ago
      That's not the case anymore; it was changed via ballot proposition several years ago, and now the top two vote-getters face off, regardless of party. That's why last year's big David Campos vs David Chiu battle happened twice: once on primary day (registered Democrats only, and just for practice), and then once again on Election Day (all voters, and this time it counts).
- benmathes 11y ago
  He's termed out in 2016. May try to run for state office again like he did in 2014. http://www.sfbarf.org/front.html http://www.sfbarf.org/front.html (could really use a site update, but they're doing the right work)
nosuchthing 11y ago
Real estate everywhere is entirely backwards and will only incentive siphoning as much money as possible though such a limited supply side market. Low income developments only happen as mandated by local municipalities, and even so developers do so reluctantly only to qualify for the tax breaks on their larger maximum market rate brand new condo in the freshly gentrified neighborhood developments.
- forrestthewoods 11y ago
  That's only true in large cities which are effectively at 100% land usage. Meanwhile where I grew up in rural Tennessee not only are the houses cheap but the materials used to build them are lesser than anything you'll find within 50 miles of downtown Seattle (where I now live). My view is slightly more nuanced. Developing is expensive. Luxury properties, like all luxury goods, sell at a higher margin than non-luxury. Therefore developers will build higher margin luxury apartments until demand for luxury apartments is satisfied. At that point they'll build mid-tier. Which have lower margins but it's still profitable and better than not making money. Then, once the mid-tier is finally satisfied, the low end will be built. Margins are likely crappy but hey whatever. Once you reach full land use there's another layer of complexity. You can't build out so you have to build up. And building up is more expensive. In fact each floor is more expensive than the one below it. It doesn't take long for simply breaking even to be too expensive for even the lowest tier when land costs come into play.
- fragmede 11y ago
  > limited supply side market. Just to keep up with the national US growth rate (0.7%), San Francisco alone would need to make housing for almost 6000 new residents per year. In the first decade of this century (2000-2009) there was a total of 2,500 added per year, or roughly a half of what's needed, and that's a simplistic calculation for what's needed. Add in a renewed popularity of cities and urban living over the suburbs, and it's no wonder then, that housing is in short supply in San Francisco. The reality that San Francisco doesn't want to face is that housing for at least 6000 people needs to be added EVERY SINGLE YEAR, just to keep up. All the challenges related to adding housing in San Francisco (here's a hint; a 150-year old facade isn't historic) add up to one thing - very limited supply, and any Econ 101 student could tell you the result. What happens when demand rises while supply stays the same (or even goes down, relatively)? Prices skyrocket.
teacup50 11y ago
Seeking to maintain a balanced economy, culture, and community isn't "class warfare"; it's just city planning with a view beyond the next MVP. You can never build enough housing in a high-demand city without destroying the city; the demand is too elastic, the incentives between neighborhoods/culture and developers too misaligned. San Francisco's problem is in the externalities levied by the immature VC-valley monoculture; significant increases in market rate housing density bring corresponding increases in the societal/cultural problems underlying this issue.
- Kalium 11y ago
  > You can never build enough housing in a high-demand city without destroying the city; the demand is too elastic, the incentives between neighborhoods/culture and developers too misaligned. Come on. Say what you mean. You don't want things to change, because then things would be different and you'd have to have Those People in your wonderful inclusive life. And that would be bad. So down with inclusiveness!
  - teacup50 11y ago
    In many places, yes, density would objectively and significantly decrease the quality of life of all existing residents, and that would be bad.
    - Kalium 11y ago
      Fortunately for us all, precious few of those places are in the Bay. The vast majority of San Francisco can't even be reasonably called mid-rise neighborhoods. But let's not get caught up in that yet. In what way would density "objectively and significantly decrease the quality of life of all existing residents"? From your phrasing, you clearly have solid evidence and objective metrics for your rather strong claim about both significance and universality.
- beatpanda 11y ago
  Sorry -- define "destroying the city", please, because my understanding is that cities are made of people, not buildings, and not building any new housing tends to prioritize buildings over people. From where I'm standing, the neighborhood groups preventing any new housing from getting built are the ones destroying the city.
wpietri 11y ago
I wouldn't call that class warfare, and it is certainly not instigated by the politicians. There have been anti-gentrification protests in SF long before David Campos was in office, and they will be happening long after.
smil 11y ago
It is the same in Stockholm, or worse even. Because of rent control, nobody builds rental apartments because it isn't profitable. Most rental apartments have been sold due to unprofitability and have been turned into owners apartments. The few rental apartments that still exist are rent controlled and you pay with a different type of capital to get those -- social capital. Or you can spend 15 years of your life in the housing queue. There literally is no rental market, rental agencies don't exist. As a result, Sweden has the world's largest housing bubble and by some measures the highest private debt of any country. You can not find a more segregated, class-based society in the developed world.
- jmspring 11y ago
  I recall running into a pensioner at Akkurat on my last visit. He was complaining about his 350 euro rent controlled apartment in Gamla Stan. I just shook my head - one the low rent; two he was drinking and eating at Akkurat which isn't the cheapest place.
  - smil 11y ago
    Even if this person was not rich as measured by capital, he is somehow privileged in other ways. Like running in the right social circles and knowing the people who hand out these rental contracts. Typically, people in media, the culture sector, and politics, know each other and do each other these kind of favors. It's how corruption works in a society where power and influence have been consolidated over decades. Me, I moved to China.
- PhasmaFelis 11y ago
  > Because of rent control, nobody builds rental apartments because it isn't profitable. I'd like to understand this better. I live in a city of a quarter-million people in a US state that no one in tech cares about. There's no rent control here. I pay $400 plus utilities for a 1000-square-foot apartment in a decent location. Clearly my landlord is making a profit off of this and similar apartments at $400 a month. But I'm often told that, if my apartment was in New York, he'd be taking a loss even at $2000 a month. Why is that? The only difference that has occurred to me so far is the initial cost of the land in a dense city, which could potentially be enough to tie up many years of profits. But that's still just a one-time cost. What am I missing?
joe_the_user 11y ago
Actually the issues are fairly interrelated. San Francisco is currently getting the overflow from massively constricted housing market of San Jose and the Peninsula. Build high rises in East Palo Alto and you satisfy the demands of the "anti-gentrifiers" and make the labor more elastic.

MBlume 11y ago

So when is David Campos up for reelection? How quickly can we mobilize to eliminate him? ETA: Next year, 2016, so we have about a year and a half.

capkutay 11y ago
I don't want to turn this thread into a political debate, but I'll just leave this here: http://www.sfhac.org/stop-the-mission-moratorium/ http://www.sfhac.org/stop-the-mission-moratorium/
raldi 11y ago
It takes less than five minutes to register to vote by mail in San Francisco, and doing so means you're a lot more likely to vote, and to do so while carefully reading a voter guide. Here's how: https://www.reddit.com/r/housingforsf/comments/22xoht/help_hfsf_register_to_vote_by_mail_and_tell_us/ https://www.reddit.com/r/housingforsf/comments/22xoht/help_h...
- patmcguire 11y ago
  And remember: for any position where there's a primary, the Democratic Primary is the election, so if you want to count, register accordingly
  - raldi 11y ago
    That's not the case anymore; it was changed via ballot proposition several years ago, and now the top two vote-getters face off, regardless of party. That's why last year's big David Campos vs David Chiu battle happened twice: once on primary day (registered Democrats only, and just for practice), and then once again on Election Day (all voters, and this time it counts).
benmathes 11y ago
He's termed out in 2016. May try to run for state office again like he did in 2014. http://www.sfbarf.org/front.html http://www.sfbarf.org/front.html (could really use a site update, but they're doing the right work)

nosuchthing 11y ago

Real estate everywhere is entirely backwards and will only incentive siphoning as much money as possible though such a limited supply side market. Low income developments only happen as mandated by local municipalities, and even so developers do so reluctantly only to qualify for the tax breaks on their larger maximum market rate brand new condo in the freshly gentrified neighborhood developments.

forrestthewoods 11y ago
That's only true in large cities which are effectively at 100% land usage. Meanwhile where I grew up in rural Tennessee not only are the houses cheap but the materials used to build them are lesser than anything you'll find within 50 miles of downtown Seattle (where I now live). My view is slightly more nuanced. Developing is expensive. Luxury properties, like all luxury goods, sell at a higher margin than non-luxury. Therefore developers will build higher margin luxury apartments until demand for luxury apartments is satisfied. At that point they'll build mid-tier. Which have lower margins but it's still profitable and better than not making money. Then, once the mid-tier is finally satisfied, the low end will be built. Margins are likely crappy but hey whatever. Once you reach full land use there's another layer of complexity. You can't build out so you have to build up. And building up is more expensive. In fact each floor is more expensive than the one below it. It doesn't take long for simply breaking even to be too expensive for even the lowest tier when land costs come into play.
fragmede 11y ago
> limited supply side market. Just to keep up with the national US growth rate (0.7%), San Francisco alone would need to make housing for almost 6000 new residents per year. In the first decade of this century (2000-2009) there was a total of 2,500 added per year, or roughly a half of what's needed, and that's a simplistic calculation for what's needed. Add in a renewed popularity of cities and urban living over the suburbs, and it's no wonder then, that housing is in short supply in San Francisco. The reality that San Francisco doesn't want to face is that housing for at least 6000 people needs to be added EVERY SINGLE YEAR, just to keep up. All the challenges related to adding housing in San Francisco (here's a hint; a 150-year old facade isn't historic) add up to one thing - very limited supply, and any Econ 101 student could tell you the result. What happens when demand rises while supply stays the same (or even goes down, relatively)? Prices skyrocket.

teacup50 11y ago

Seeking to maintain a balanced economy, culture, and community isn't "class warfare"; it's just city planning with a view beyond the next MVP. You can never build enough housing in a high-demand city without destroying the city; the demand is too elastic, the incentives between neighborhoods/culture and developers too misaligned. San Francisco's problem is in the externalities levied by the immature VC-valley monoculture; significant increases in market rate housing density bring corresponding increases in the societal/cultural problems underlying this issue.

Kalium 11y ago
> You can never build enough housing in a high-demand city without destroying the city; the demand is too elastic, the incentives between neighborhoods/culture and developers too misaligned. Come on. Say what you mean. You don't want things to change, because then things would be different and you'd have to have Those People in your wonderful inclusive life. And that would be bad. So down with inclusiveness!
- teacup50 11y ago
  In many places, yes, density would objectively and significantly decrease the quality of life of all existing residents, and that would be bad.
  - Kalium 11y ago
    Fortunately for us all, precious few of those places are in the Bay. The vast majority of San Francisco can't even be reasonably called mid-rise neighborhoods. But let's not get caught up in that yet. In what way would density "objectively and significantly decrease the quality of life of all existing residents"? From your phrasing, you clearly have solid evidence and objective metrics for your rather strong claim about both significance and universality.
beatpanda 11y ago
Sorry -- define "destroying the city", please, because my understanding is that cities are made of people, not buildings, and not building any new housing tends to prioritize buildings over people. From where I'm standing, the neighborhood groups preventing any new housing from getting built are the ones destroying the city.

wpietri 11y ago

I wouldn't call that class warfare, and it is certainly not instigated by the politicians. There have been anti-gentrification protests in SF long before David Campos was in office, and they will be happening long after.

smil 11y ago

It is the same in Stockholm, or worse even. Because of rent control, nobody builds rental apartments because it isn't profitable. Most rental apartments have been sold due to unprofitability and have been turned into owners apartments. The few rental apartments that still exist are rent controlled and you pay with a different type of capital to get those -- social capital. Or you can spend 15 years of your life in the housing queue. There literally is no rental market, rental agencies don't exist. As a result, Sweden has the world's largest housing bubble and by some measures the highest private debt of any country. You can not find a more segregated, class-based society in the developed world.

jmspring 11y ago
I recall running into a pensioner at Akkurat on my last visit. He was complaining about his 350 euro rent controlled apartment in Gamla Stan. I just shook my head - one the low rent; two he was drinking and eating at Akkurat which isn't the cheapest place.
- smil 11y ago
  Even if this person was not rich as measured by capital, he is somehow privileged in other ways. Like running in the right social circles and knowing the people who hand out these rental contracts. Typically, people in media, the culture sector, and politics, know each other and do each other these kind of favors. It's how corruption works in a society where power and influence have been consolidated over decades. Me, I moved to China.
PhasmaFelis 11y ago
> Because of rent control, nobody builds rental apartments because it isn't profitable. I'd like to understand this better. I live in a city of a quarter-million people in a US state that no one in tech cares about. There's no rent control here. I pay $400 plus utilities for a 1000-square-foot apartment in a decent location. Clearly my landlord is making a profit off of this and similar apartments at $400 a month. But I'm often told that, if my apartment was in New York, he'd be taking a loss even at $2000 a month. Why is that? The only difference that has occurred to me so far is the initial cost of the land in a dense city, which could potentially be enough to tie up many years of profits. But that's still just a one-time cost. What am I missing?

joe_the_user 11y ago

Actually the issues are fairly interrelated. San Francisco is currently getting the overflow from massively constricted housing market of San Jose and the Peninsula. Build high rises in East Palo Alto and you satisfy the demands of the "anti-gentrifiers" and make the labor more elastic.