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

Sat Jun 8 13:52:04 PDT 2013

Interesting that the "progressives" in SF favor suburban sprawl. Blocking
high density urban housing is unquestionably bad for the environment.

On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:00 PM, hep <dis at gruntle.org> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130608/a2e091d4/attachment.html>