[sudo-discuss] new occuption in SF: #gezigardens

Wed Jun 5 22:00:07 PDT 2013

http://www.sfbg.com/2013/05/28/planning-displacement?page=0%2C0

On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Sonja Trauss <sonja.trauss at gmail.com> wrote:

> The origin of the 30,000 number is unclear, and I can't tell what kind of
> vacancy they're talking about - due to renovation? Fights over ownership?
> Transition of ownership? Intermittent use because the owners live somewhere
> else also? It also seems neither here nor there. SF is not a military base.
> The city doesn't own most of the housing here, unless those are 30,000
> public housing apartments, how can the city do anything about whether they
> are rented or occupied? Supposing they could do something about those
> vacant units, what does this private development have to do with the city
> developing other places?
>
> More housing at any price level will bring prices down at all levels (if
> the number of people stays constant) and help keep prices from rising if
> more people are constantly moving in.
> Suppose you have 45 people in a little toy city that can spend $10,000/ mo
> on an apt, and 40 apartments that are really super nice. 40 rich people
> will get super duper nice apartments, and 5 rich people will overpay
> (because the landlord knows he can charge it) for a merely very nice
> apartment. Now suppose a developer builds 5 new $10,000/ mo apartments. Now
> all of the people willing to pay $10,000/ mo have super duper nice apts,
> and the owners of those merely very nice apartments will be forced to
> charge $8,000. Notice, that 5 $10,000 apts were built, but what we have is
> 5 new $8,000/mo apts, because the highest end of the market was
> oversubscribed. But it doesn't have to stop there. Maybe before the new
> apts were built there were 35 people willing to spend $8,000, but only 28
> very nice apts, so 7 people were paying $8,000/ mo for merely nice
> apartments. Now that there are 5 new $8,000 apartments, only 2 people will
> be overpaying, and there will be 5 newly available nice apartments that
> those owners will have to rent for $6,000. Anyway, so on. That's now
> building new housing at any price level can affect the price of housing at
> lower levels.
>
> Of course that won't happen if there are people that move to the city to
> live in these luxury apartments who would not have moved in otherwise.
> Like, if there are 185 people in mountain view who were not planning on
> moving to SF, but then hear about this apt bdg and all move into it. In
> that case, the new development is neutral, it does nothing.
>
> Developers of all kinds are more or less all in the same community. If
> people truly want affordable housing to be built, they should do everything
> they can to make building very very cheap, that includes not being part of
> making the political process expensive. If a mid-level developer sees that
> even very rich developers are having a hard time getting their plans
> through, then what hope does the less fancy developer have?
>
> Now, if what you are interested in is seeing property values in the east
> bay rise, than you should work very hard to keep supply down and prices up
> in SF. I rent in west oakland, but we have some rent control. In a way, the
> best thing for me would be for SF rents to keep rising in a crazy way! that
> way people will be forced to move to my neighborhood, more yuppie coffee
> shops can open up and more cute stores with stupid nicknacks, more bars
> with drinks made with muddled ginger and sassifras, etc. :p Maybe that's
> the agenda for these hippies. Maybe they all own houses in W Oakland or
> Longfellow or Temescal. :D
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 5, 2013, Anthony Di Franco wrote:
>
>> The SFBG article states that the construction planned is for 185 units,
>> with an unspecified number of low-income units to follow at an unspecified
>> time in the future. Meanwhile, the Gezi Gardens press release quoted in the
>> SFBG article states in part, "the San Francisco Tenants Union reports that
>> over 30,000 housing units are vacant in San Francisco. We believe that the
>> city should develop housing units in existing vacant buildings instead of
>> places like this beautiful farm and green space."
>> Is that claim accounted for in your views about what is likely to make
>> living in the city more affordable? How if so? (I don't know much about
>> housing economics and politics in San Francisco myself and I am looking to
>> learn more from this controversy.)
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Jehan Tremback <jehan.tremback at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> I doubt that a farm will make SF rent any more affordable, while new
>>> housing will. Building temporary structures is a great use of an
>>> underutilized backyard, but there is no way that a plywood hexayurt will
>>> last 200+ years like an actual building will (not that your hexayurts
>>> aren't awesome, Morten).
>>>
>>> There seems to be a group of people who are intensely interested in
>>> agriculture, but only if it will lead to a confrontation with the police.
>>> There are also people who have strong opinions about the zoning of
>>> neighborhoods they do not live in, despite never having attended a single
>>> planning board meeting.
>>>
>>> OSF, to me, was less hypocritical because the stated aim was always
>>> occupation as a means to protest greater societal ills. Squatting in empty
>>> buildings also makes some sense because the space is not being utilized.
>>> Blocking construction that will make the city more affordable, while
>>> sustaining well-paying unionized construction jobs is handwavy posturing.
>>>
>>> -Jehan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Marina Kukso <marina.kukso at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> hey friends,
>>>>
>>>> morten is building a yurt (
>>>> https://twitter.com/OccupyOakland/status/342041218806599681) over at a
>>>> new occupation site in sf: gezi gardens.
>>>>
>>>> folks there want to build an ecovillage, which i believe is relevant to
>>>> the interests of at least some sudoers.
>>>>
>>>> more info at
>>>> http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2013/06/04/former-hayes-valley-farm-site-occupied-renamed-gezi-gardensand on twitter at #gezigardens.
>>>>
>>>> - marina
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>

-- 
hep
hepic photography || www.hepic.net
    dis at gruntle.org || 415 867 9472
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130605/71870e64/attachment.html>