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

Mon Jun 10 15:52:47 PDT 2013

..."rich" guy reads random mumblings from hackers on list-serve archive,
goes to craigslist and modifies minimum rent search to $5,000, moves to
Marina to avoid the whole discussion.

OR

..."rich" guy stumbles into hacker happy hour in Oakland, rents warehouse
for $2,000 dollars and buys hot tub, re-commits life purpose to FREE HOT
TUBS for all.

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Sonja Trauss <sonja.trauss at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>

-- 
ThanX,
;+)

https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Fort
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130610/1845e8ed/attachment.html>