[sudo-discuss] new occuption in SF: #gezigardens
GtwoG PublicOhOne
g2g-public01 at att.net
Mon Jun 10 15:24:19 PDT 2013
Rich Guy decides to move into new apartment across the street for
$3,000/month. Owner of his old apartment puts it back on the market for
$3,000/month. Four guys who have just scored H1B visas move in the next
day.
Four hackers lose their jobs to the guys with the H1B visas. Three of
them are living in tiny "studios" for $2,000/month, but one of them has
a 1-bedroom apartment at the same price, so all four of them
"consolidate" into the 1-BR together to save money.
That's how "the market" _really_ works. When there are more humans than
there are resources to employ and house the humans, the value of humans
declines relative to the resources needed to support them.
Meanwhile, since our unemployed hackers also have carpentry skills, they
move into the one-bedroom apartment together and build two sets of
double bunks in the bedroom for sleeping. They soundproof the closet to
provide "private space" for carrying on their sex lives, and use a
scheduling app to coordinate use of the closet, and use of the shower as
well.
They spend two hours a week having "house meetings" with topics such as
"who left a mess in the sex-closet this weekend?" and "which blend of
coffee to buy for the network-connected coffee maker?" The one who's
gay publishes sarcastic "back in the closet" jokes to a mailing list,
and the jokes go viral. One of them 3D-prints a multiple-hopper input
device for the coffee maker and a cup-sequencer for its output, enabling
it to handle four different blends of coffee at once, and is hailed as a
genius by the other three.
-G.
=====
On 13-06-10-Mon 1:46 PM, Jehan Tremback wrote:
> @Eddie- Sorry about the eye! That was the default Ubuntu avatar, and
> it somehow got synced to my email when I ran Pidgin. So the eye is
> actually open source! I'll get rid of it though if you want.
>
> I'll go over this briefly, but there are better resources out there.
>
> Let's say rich guy can afford $3000 dollars a month and wants to live
> in SF. So landlord charges him $3000 for an apartment because it isn't
> a closet. Since there is nowhere else to live in SF, rich guy pays
> this. New luxury building opens across the street with really nice new
> apartments for $3000 a month. Rich guy decides to move, and landlord
> puts apartment back on the market for $3000. But because all of the
> other rich guys are also living in the new luxury building, landlord
> finds no tenants. Next month, landlord is forced to lower rent to
> $2000 and 4 hackers move in. This is how the market works.
>
> -Jehan
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Sonja Trauss <sonja.trauss at gmail.com
> <mailto:sonja.trauss at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Ok so your position is that the whole of the new housing will be
> taken up by people who don't currently live in SF, want to, but
> won't move into SF unless new housing is built.
>
> Can you describe what it is about the new housing that will make
> people who already have stable, adequate places to live
> elsewhere move into it, when they've already decided theyre not
> interested in living in any of the currently available sf
> housing? Does this question make sense? What's special about the
> new housing? What would make a person move to SF Only If new
> housing is built? What is the scenario. I can think of two. One
> silly and one not silly.
>
>
> On Sunday, June 9, 2013, Eddie Che wrote:
>
> 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
> > --
> Eddie Miller, BU '10
> eddiemill at gmail.com | 440-935-5434 <tel:440-935-5434>
> Facebook.com/eddiemill | Twitter.com/eddiemill
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> <mailto: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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130610/e0207386/attachment.html>
More information about the sudo-discuss
mailing list