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

Mon Jun 10 16:59:23 PDT 2013

Lets be clear that no one is arguing there should be less housing in SF.
The argument is that current housing in SF is too expensive and vacant.
There isn't a scarcity as much as a price fixing scheme going on. The only
purpose for building new units is for the developers and landlords to get
in on the scheme while it's hot, hoping for the market to bounce back and
suddenly $5,000 is the new $3,000 in SF and they are sitting on prime real
estate. In the meantime the units will remain vacant or just rented out (or
leased) to people moving in to the City for work.

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 4:32 PM, GtwoG PublicOhOne <g2g-public01 at att.net>wrote:

>
> That $5,000/month 2-BR apartment translates to $60K/year for rent, which
> means that the owner isn't even going to look at anyone with an income
> below $180K, or a married couple with joint income of $180K and perfect
> credit ratings.
>
> Re. "many levels of rich": the average millionaire is closer to his/her
> gardener in terms of net worth, than to the plutocrats (but most
> millionaires have no clue about this).  In any case, there are enough
> people in the 1% to account for 95% of the spending in the economy (keyword
> search "plutonomy" and look for the report that was leaked from one of the
> major banks on that topic), so the bottom 99% is almost irrelevant ("supply
> and demand" for human lives, again).
>
> Re. "at whatever level a developer wants to provide more housing, I'll say
> YES DO IT..."  Be careful what you wish for...
>
> Re. "tall buildings..." (preceding email):  When the inevitable 7.0 on
> either the Hayward or San Andreas occurs, even if the building remains
> standing (this can't be taken for granted either, given the problems with
> the imported steel in the Bay Bridge) power & water will be out for weeks,
> possibly months in some areas.  Elevators and air conditioning won't be
> working in those buildings.  So now you have highrises full of people, some
> of whom are elderly, disabled, or have small kids, with no food or water,
> and no sanitation.  Asking neighbors to carry food up the stairs might
> work, but lugging water up ten or twenty flights is a non-starter (a 2-day
> supply for one person for drinking and cooking, is about 25 lbs.).
>
> Even earthquake-denialism doesn't help us, because adding high-rises adds
> demand for water, sewer, and parking, all the time.  Assuming that most
> high-rise residents won't have cars doesn't help much, because some will,
> and those will still add up to more cars than there is space to park them.
> Water and sewer are the biggies, and any move toward highrise development
> will require digging up streets and installing new water & sewer mains,
> which translate to higher costs either in rent or in taxes.
>
> Albert Einstein was a pacifist, and Edward Teller was a hawk.  Both agreed
> that the exponential function is the most dangerous math on Earth.
>
> -G.
>
>
> =====
>
>
>
> On 13-06-10-Mon 3:41 PM, Sonja Trauss 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 listsudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.orghttp://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>

-- 
-------
Andrew Lowe
Cell: 831-332-2507
http://roshambomedia.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130610/36fe501e/attachment.html>