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

[Sonja Trauss]

Yeah Jehan that's how I understand it.

Eddie's scenario though is that rich_guy CAN'T move into the nice new apt,
because before he gets there, some rich_guy_2 moves into the apt from
Mountain View, and *rich_guy_2 would not have moved into SF if the new
apartments hadn't been built*.

This is a scenario, so we should explore its antecedents and consequences.

My first response is - so what if this happens. In this scenario rents go
neither up or down. I don't think it's realistic to expect that all new
building will be taken up like this, but, since I don't know the future,
it's worth imagining this extreme outcome and asking, is it bad? if it is
bad, is it so bad that we shouldn't take the risk of it happening? I don't
see it as bad. Like I said before, it will have no net affect on rent, so
we lose nothing, and there might be ancillary benefits: my $13 jam business
might improve, or my $75/ hour personal yoga coach business. Maybe I'm a
social worker, and this means there will be more money in the city budget
for my organization. whatever.

Next, more interestingly, let's consider what could possibly cause
rich_guy_2's behavior. Usually people move to be closer to work, to be
closer to some fun city center, to be closer to family, they make the
decision and then they look for housing. They do not hear of new housing
being built and say, on that fact alone, 'I will now move!'

If someone hears of new housing being built, and he then says, 'I will now
move,' it is because he is (1) very strict about only living in brand new
housing (not likely) or (2) RESPONDING TO AN INCREASE IN SUPPLY AT HIS
PRICE POINT.

Have you ever heard someone say "there are no available apartments in SF"?
Of course he doesn't mean there are no available apartments, of course
there are apartments: http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/apa/ there's a $5000
2 bedroom at the top of the list. What he means is "there are no available
apartments in SF at my price point." So, this person, who wants to spend
say, $3000 for a nice 2 bedroom lives somewhere else, and waits for the
supply of $3000 2 bedroom apartments to increase. This is rich_guy_2. This
person is currently priced out of San Francisco. Hard to believe, but true,
there are many levels of rich. You can be house shopping and be priced out
at almost any price point. I'm sympathetic to people that are priced out. I
don't want to see anyone priced out. I'm not going to discriminate based on
income high or low. No one should be priced out. If you can pay $300/mo or
$3000 you should be able to find something you think is reasonable in this
town. The supply of housing in SF is too small at all but the highest price
point. At whatever level a developer wants to supply more housing, I will
say YES. DO IT.

MOREOVER. If it's expensive to build, developers will only be able to
afford to build high priced projects. One of the things that makes building
expensive is fighting with neighbors. So its ironic (and a little sad) to
see people who want lower priced housing doing things that make building
expensive. I think I said this in another email, but if a smaller budget
developer wants to build a cheaper project, but sees that even the very
rich developer can barely get his project finished because he has to spend
time and resources fighting with neighbors, then the smaller developer will
be like forget it, I can't do this.


On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Jehan Tremback <jehan.tremback at gmail.com>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>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
>>> Facebook.com/eddiemill | Twitter.com/eddiemill
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/a60ddf2a/attachment.html>