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

Sun Jun 9 19:11:36 PDT 2013

Oy, greetings. First of all that Eye is really hateful, let's tone
that down a little! I've been against the eye because it is oppressive
so, chill. @Jehan.

Building will increase the population in San Francisco. Not house the
houseless and not bring down rents. These are upscale (condos?)
apartments, bringing the added keyword of gentrification.

I like the Spain example. Government here (County, City, State, and
National) could give land that is being held by it, eg around highway
off-ramps or hills or wherEVER to folks who are disenchanted with...
corporate rule.

"liberating land from private control and corporate interests and for
the common good of all people."

Can we hack that?
EMCHE, in a tree.

PS by the way, surprising about SF's vacant housing units @
https://www.baycitizen.org/blogs/pulse-of-the-bay/sf-leads-bay-area-vacant-homes/

On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 6:41 PM, GtwoG PublicOhOne <g2g-public01 at att.net> wrote:
>
> Imagine a news headline saying "Good news for the economy: food prices are
> up for the third month in a row!"  Food-owners would celebrate, and
> foodless-rights advocates would protest, but nothing would change unless the
> entire system of food-speculation was curbed.
>
> Or imagine this:  Dateline: Marinaleda, Spain.  Municipal government GIVES
> dispossessed people the land and building materials to build their own
> homes, and pays contractors to provide assistance with the high-skill parts
> such as plumbing.  This is REAL and it's happening NOW.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22701384
>
> "In the wake of Spain's property crash, hundreds of thousands of homes have
> been repossessed. While one regional government says it will seize
> repossessed properties from the banks, a little town is doing away with
> mortgages altogether. ...  In Marinaleda, residents like 42-year-old
> father-of-three, David Gonzalez Molina, are building their own homes.
>
> "The town hall in this ... town an hour-and-a-bit east of Seville, has given
> David 190 sq m (2,000 sq ft) of land. ...  The bricks and mortar are also a
> gift... from the regional government of Andalusia. ... Only once his home is
> finished will he start paying 15 euros (£13) [approx. $26] a month, to the
> regional government, to refund the cost of other building materials. ...
>
> "...[The town's] Mayor Juan Manuel Sanchez Gordillo is known for occupying
> land belonging to the wealthy in Andalusia. ... Last summer, he and his
> left-wing union comrades stole from supermarkets and handed out the food to
> the poor.  "I think it is possible that a home should be a right, and not a
> business, in Europe", he argues. Mayor Sanchez Gordillo pours scorn on
> "speculators"....
>
> ---
>
> Think outside the box, and you might end up thinking like Mayor Sanchez
> Gordillo.
>
> What happens when home prices and rents keep increasing while average income
> levels have barely budged since 1974?
>
> What happens to the lives of people, when the health of an economy in large
> part depends on relentless increase in the price of a vital necessity that
> is also a fixed resource, such as the square footage in which to eat, sleep,
> and wash?
>
> Meanwhile developers are building "luxury" apartments, but the number of
> "affordable" units isn't specified and always turns out to be less than
> first claimed.  How is it that anyone has a "right" to luxury, at the
> expense of others' poverty and homelessness?
>
> At root, this isn't a race issue of black and white, though the guardians of
> privilege benefit mightily when it's framed that way, and people who have
> common cause are divided against each other.  At root, it's a class issue of
> green and red.
>
> Land speculation is a broken machine running an obsolete operating system,
> that's begging to get "rooted."
>
> -G
>
>
> =====
>
>
>
> On 13-06-08-Sat 3:06 PM, Sonja Trauss wrote:
>
> I know, it's so outrageous. This line, "The notion of smart growth — also
> referred to as urban infill — has been around for years, embraced by a
> certain type of environmentalist, particularly those concerned with
> protecting open space."
>
> Yeah, the type of environmentalist that is an environmentalist - what is
> this supposed to mean!
>
> Also I guess (I hope) these progressives don't realize that in opposing
> development in Bayview, they are contributing to keeping blacks overall
> poorer than whites.
>
> Putting renters aside for a minute, let's consider similarly situated black
> and white homeowners, in similar income black and white neighborhoods. If
> these neighborhoods are in a city that is growing in wealth and population
> (like san francisco) both homeowners should be able to look forward to their
> house values increasing, right? NO. House values at first only increase in
> the white neighborhoods, because the new residents, moving to SF from all
> over the world, avoid living in black neighborhoods. Here's a citation and a
> quotation, but this isn't the kind of knowledge we need experts to discover
> for us. Examine your own mind, you use black population level as a proxy for
> neighborhood safety. You probably believe that it is a good proxy, that you
> can judge the thing you can't immediately see (how likely are you to be
> mugged) by judging a thing you can see (black people around?).
> We find that the percentage of a neighborhood’s black
> population,particularly the percentage young black men, is significantly
> associated with perceptions of the severity of the neighborhood’s crime
> problem. This relationship persists under controls for official neighborhood
> crime rates. http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/ajs_quillian&pager.pdf-
> The effect of this is that homeowners in black neighborhoods (many of them
> black) can't expect to benefit from the overall increase in wealth of their
> city in the same way white homeowners can. That is, until, the rent in white
> neighborhoods has become so egregiously high that white people, having
> already filled up the industrial neighborhoods (they'd rather live next to
> machines than live next to black people!) are finally land starved enough to
> consider living in, buying land in, spending money in, black neighborhoods.
> Our composite black homeowner starts to get excited. "Yay, I can finally (1)
> borrow a large sum of money against my now appreciated house (2) rent my
> house at a high price to the new white people moving in, retire and move
> somewhere beautiful in the country or (3) sell my house at a higher price
> than ever to these white developers." BUT WAIT, black homeowner, here we
> have some helpful progressives, looking to protect you from your good
> fortune. Screaming that you can't be allowed to be "displaced." Nevermind
> that once you own your house, nothing can MAKE you move, and if you sell or
> move to rent it, that is because you would rather have the money you get
> from those activities than stay in your house!
>
> Lets return to renters. The bottom of page four of this hysterical article
> says: "Let's remember: Building more housing, even a lot more housing, won't
> necessarily bring down prices. The report makes clear that the job growth,
> and population boom that accompanies it, will fuel plenty of demand for all
> those new units."
> Right - housing prices have to do with the relative supply of housing. If
> the amount of housing expands at the same rate the population expands, the
> price of housing will not go up or down. But if the population increases and
> the supply of housing doesn't, then prices will go up! This article is
> advocating for no new housing to be built - what if we do continue to see
> more population! Things will be worse than they are now. It will certainly
> be a much worse scenario if SF has more jobs, more people, but the same amt
> of housing.
> Finally, there is the projection, by developers, of how much they are going
> to be charging for the new units. People look at the new housing and see
> that the plan is for it to be high priced. They don't realize that if the
> supply of housing increases as fast or faster than the population increases,
> that the introduction of new housing at the high price point will cause some
> of the currently expensive housing to drop in price (because people like new
> things, generally, better than they like old things.) The mid level renter
> will see the options available at his price point expand. If there is enough
> housing growth, the supply of the lowest price housing could expand also. If
> there is way too much housing growth, the renting population of SF might
> just win the housing market lottery - see developers go bankrupt and be
> forced to sell their newly built condos for a fraction of the planned price,
> or be forced to keep them and rent them out to anyone who will take them.
>
> Could building new housing cause people who wouldn't have lived here move
> here? Can it be the sole cause of population growth? yeah, there are more
> people that want to live in SF than do live in SF, for a little while the
> increase in housing will be taken up by the people in the surrounding areas
> that have been wishing they lived in SF but couldn't (this is the opposite
> of the displacement problem, btw) It seems mean spirited to oppose new
> housing to keep those people out. If you consider the SF community to be not
> just the people that live there, but also the people that used to live there
> but were already pushed out, plus the people that never even got the chance
> to be pushed out, than you're an agent of displacement when you keep new
> housing from being built.
>
> Damn that's a long email.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

-- 
Eddie Miller, BU '10
eddiemill at gmail.com | 440-935-5434
Facebook.com/eddiemill | Twitter.com/eddiemill