San Francisco mayor flatly calls out NIMBYs
We need more Mayors to do this :tup:
San Francisco mayor blasts “lefty movement” for blocking housing London Breed: Bad politics block solutions to affordability crisis October 15, 2020 04:30 PM By Orion Jones Quote:
|
Can any Mod change this thread title to:
"San Francisco Mayor flatly calls out NIMBYs" I made an error with the original thread title. |
I voted for Breed. Although a center-left Democratic "woman of color", she was the most development friendly and least "radical" of the choices. And I'm satisfied with the job she's doing under difficult circumstances (a much further left Board of Supervisors).
But I have to disagrew with her that "The problem we have, and why we are seeing even more homeless people than we have in the past, has a lot to do with the fact that we have not kept up pace with building more housing,” she said on the popular podcast.." Our homeless population couldn't afford even the least costly housing possible. Most of them are unemployed and the most troublesome ones are mentally ill and substance dependent. More housing might help the cops and nurses and other working middle class folks stay in the city, but it won't help the homeless much. We've had so many threads on that subject I won't get into it here except to say that San Francisco is now spending something like ⅔ of a billion (with a B) dollars per year on the homeless population, inclduing services to try to keep those who are in danger of becoming homeless from doing so, and it all seems to make no difference. It's like in the other thread where it was said that no matter how much space you have, you'll fill it up. "Progressive" west coast cities with decent weather seem to have an endless supply of homeless people headed their way and wanting to camp on their sidewalks. Hopefully in less than 3 weeks now at least we'll be able to toss out one of the worst Supervisors who represents my district (which includes the very left Hayes Valley, Haight-Ashbury and Western Addition), Dean Preston, and install al ally of the Mayor, Allie Brown. |
I've always said that if our cities simply flung open the regulatory doors to housing construction, basement/attic apartments, reducing strict building codes, allowed property owners to more easily partition their homes into multi-unit housing, etc we wouldn't need Rent control laws (which only increase housing costs further)
|
Quote:
Sen. Wiener takes another shot at upzoning state's single-family landscape Scott Wiener back with another plan to build denser housing in California Critique of Housing Legislation Under Consideration by California State Senate and Assembly |
This is happening everywhere, but in Chicago we continue to have city leaders who just don't understand the market and it's telling. There are some Aldermen who are opposed to gentrification, and they still think that the best way to stop gentrification is to stop ALL real estate development. It's asinine. It's absolutely the opposite of what needs to happen, everybody knows it, but they keep sticking to the same line over and over.
|
Sure it would help the homeless.
Not the mentally ill and completely destitute in any direct way, but some percentage of homeless are workers who can't find anything. When supply grows relative to demand, the bottom rung gets cheaper. Meanwhile the worst-off benefit when others vacate the services they no longer need. New housing doesn't solve everything, but it's a big part of the solution for the homeless and the rest of the housing market, except the people who already own of course. |
Quote:
Quote:
But I repeat what I said; making it easier to build market rate housing and even what SF calls "affordable housing" does very little for the homeless. There may be a few with low-paying jobs who are on the brink of homelessness and who qualify for the affordable program's rental units, but what the long-term homeless need is multi-service heavily subsidized (if not free) housing with onsite medical care and counseling. Private for-profit developers don't build this sort of thing. Even the non-profits rarely do. This is something government has to do. "The bottom rung" in San Francisco is never going to be cheap enough for someone with no employment prospects and an opiate habit which describes most of the people on our streets. The family with a low paying job who can't quite find rent they can afford in SF usually are helped to find something within weeks by one or another program paid for by that $600 million. |
FYI, here is a complete list of the 376 100% "affordable" rental projects in San Francisco: https://data.sfgov.org/Housing-and-B...pmen/9rdx-httc
And besides all the NIMBYs, SF has YIMBYs (of which I am one). |
I never thought I'd say this but...I kinda wish a republican was running SF. lol
|
^^^ You might eventually have that become a reality. Once something gets too extreme, it can only swing to the opposite direction.
|
Quote:
As for Seattle, we passed a tax on high wages, which becomes law on January 1 and is expected to raise over $200 million per year. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/se...ate-and-42595/ https://www.geekwire.com/2020/seattl...ses-will-work/ |
Quote:
|
Relevant
The experts who were paid 30 million to study the problem basically concluded it was the high cost of housing that mostly contributed to the homeless issues in the city. And also the vast majority of the homeless in San Francisco were people who were already living in the city. So the idea that everybody across the country is just pilling into the Bay Area to become homeless that many subscribe to is a lie. |
^ You’re joking, right?
They didn’t really spend $30MM for that advice, did they? |
Quote:
But I don't know if lowering costs 10% would be enough. Median rents in San Francisco are down some 25% from before the COVID exodus, but even now, prices are still far too expensive for entire classes of laborers. |
Quote:
Average construction costs of residential buildings in the United States in 2019, by select city https://uniim1.shutterfly.com/ng/ser...901836/enhance Blue=Multifamily, black=single family https://www.statista.com/statistics/...-in-us-cities/ At almost $500/sq ft cost to build, a 500 sq ft efficiency apartment costs $250,000 to construct. If developed privately, it isn't likely to sell for less than $300,000 or rent for less than around $1500/month ( a 6% cap rate which is low). The current rental rate in SF is around $3.75/month/sq ft ( source: https://www.rentcafe.com/average-ren...san-francisco/ ) or just over $1850 for that 500 sq ft apartment. So it may be possible to lower rents a bit by allowing developers to build, build, build, but if rents get much lower they will stop because they won't be making any money. Many people argue that that's already the case. San Francisco long ago crossed a Rubicon of sorts when it allowed the demolition of much of its stock of SRO hotels which were THE affordable housing for the lowest tier of those with some kind of income (minimum wage job, pension, Social Security). But it's gone. Even trying to recreate that would probably result in spaces that rent for at least $1000/month although I've long advocated doing it: Build buildings with small (250-300 square foot), minimalist rooms with private baths but maybe only 2-burner stoves or even just a microwave and an under-counter refrigerator. In other words, a room much like a camper van. THAT some people might be able to afford. |
Creating new housing doesn’t always entail new ground up construction. Subdividing homes into apartments, adding basement or attic units, etc are examples. Allowing small one story shacks with minimal amenities and lesser code requirements is another one. I know that sounds “Third World” but it’s better than sleeping on the sidewalk.
I don’t know about SF, but in Chicago subdividing your home or creating accessory apartments is basically illegal. Prior to 1952, this was commonplace, people had stronger property rights back then and were doing this without fear of getting in trouble with the city. The other problem is the stringent credit requirements of getting an apartment these days. That is an unintended and ironic product of overly tenant-friendly laws pushed by progressives in cities. I actually think that creating a more neutral environment where landlords could quickly regain possession of their apartments at minimal cost when they had a trouble tenant would make the entire rental industry relax their standards and rent out to more people with a poor credit history. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 6:05 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.