Socialists: everyone deserves not to be "poor" even in the richest, most expensive city in the U.S. and if they are "poor" then it's proof of America's Grand Failure and we need to fix it. The one thing that should never happen is that they move somewhere else.
Socialists: everyone deserves not to be "poor" even in the richest, most expensive city in the U.S. and if they are "poor" then it's proof of America's Grand Failure and we need to fix it. The one thing that should never happen is that they move somewhere else.
let's do everything we can to make permitting, zoning, and construction all but impossible to be sure that supply of homes can never expand in response to demand.
ever try building something in san francisco? i don't recommend it.
There's plenty of new housing in Mission Bay. That said, I'm totally in favor of selling and dozing the entirety of Golden Gate Park. More a glorified community college campus + burglary playground than a proper "park," and the Presidio is next door anyway. Doesn't matter - the city is doomed to be the next Detroit.
ItтАЩs still expensive. And all the new housing in SoMa (east cut as they try to call it) is freaking luxury condos a la Lumina and Mira. Yet the streets are full of homeless people with no prospects.
That's my point. The vague assertion that "if only SF would let builders come in, it would fix everything" is contradicted by the fact that there's lots of new builds and they didn't fix anything.
Price is a reflection of demand-relative supply. No, Mission Bay didn't make a dent in demand - how could it, when almost no construction was taking place in Peninsula / East Bay at the same time. Aside from a tiny blip of development in Emeryville, you have to go all the way out to Dublin or Gilroy to find some recently-squandered farmland to put a family on. In absolute terms, Mission Bay added a lot of units on its own and more than any closer satellite counties have managed to. SF's housing problem is not a reflection of SF's density, which is actually already incredibly high, but the lack of peripheral footprint.
"then how can one say "there is plenty of housing"?"
How can one say it's impossible to build in SF?
I'll grant the southern stretch of Outer Sunset, the pockets of unoccupied mansions in Pacific Heights and Sea Cliff, and of course the quasi-skid rows of Bayview as low density.
I'm not making a case for regulation, I'm just arguing that using SF as a poster child is easily contradicted by a five minute walk.
Ah but Gavin and the illustrious state Assembly and Senate have just proclaimed that they will overrule ALL local zoning laws to make any residential property capable of being a fourplex or more, subject to some very limited restrictions. That will solve everything make good and DAMN sure no one ever has to leave Paradise.
By default people, human beings, are poor. It takes a pretty well developed economy to have the level of luxury most americans have (even some of the poorest ones).
In the natural state, people are poor, as you can see on any underdeveloped african country where the majority of the population lives from subsistence agriculture.
Socialists: everyone deserves not to be "poor" even in the richest, most expensive city in the U.S. and if they are "poor" then it's proof of America's Grand Failure and we need to fix it. The one thing that should never happen is that they move somewhere else.
also socialists:
let's do everything we can to make permitting, zoning, and construction all but impossible to be sure that supply of homes can never expand in response to demand.
ever try building something in san francisco? i don't recommend it.
There's plenty of new housing in Mission Bay. That said, I'm totally in favor of selling and dozing the entirety of Golden Gate Park. More a glorified community college campus + burglary playground than a proper "park," and the Presidio is next door anyway. Doesn't matter - the city is doomed to be the next Detroit.
there really isn't. it costs what, 1000 ft2 even subsidized? 1500? more?
if there is "plenty" of housing, why would it be that expensive?
ItтАЩs still expensive. And all the new housing in SoMa (east cut as they try to call it) is freaking luxury condos a la Lumina and Mira. Yet the streets are full of homeless people with no prospects.
That oxymoron will explode one day just as it has in Paris, Detroit, Memphis and several other once proud cities.
That's my point. The vague assertion that "if only SF would let builders come in, it would fix everything" is contradicted by the fact that there's lots of new builds and they didn't fix anything.
Price is a reflection of demand-relative supply. No, Mission Bay didn't make a dent in demand - how could it, when almost no construction was taking place in Peninsula / East Bay at the same time. Aside from a tiny blip of development in Emeryville, you have to go all the way out to Dublin or Gilroy to find some recently-squandered farmland to put a family on. In absolute terms, Mission Bay added a lot of units on its own and more than any closer satellite counties have managed to. SF's housing problem is not a reflection of SF's density, which is actually already incredibly high, but the lack of peripheral footprint.
then how can one say "there is plenty of housing"?
in absolute terms, it did not make a dent.
none of it has. i used to live in SOMA before it had any tall buildings. if supply had kept up with demand, prices would not be up so much.
and an awful lot of SF is still quite low density. richmond, sunset, marina, mission, etc.
if there were any real will to build, it could easily be a lot more populous.
space is not the limiter.
"then how can one say "there is plenty of housing"?"
How can one say it's impossible to build in SF?
I'll grant the southern stretch of Outer Sunset, the pockets of unoccupied mansions in Pacific Heights and Sea Cliff, and of course the quasi-skid rows of Bayview as low density.
I'm not making a case for regulation, I'm just arguing that using SF as a poster child is easily contradicted by a five minute walk.
Ah but Gavin and the illustrious state Assembly and Senate have just proclaimed that they will overrule ALL local zoning laws to make any residential property capable of being a fourplex or more, subject to some very limited restrictions. That will solve everything make good and DAMN sure no one ever has to leave Paradise.
ЁЯдк ЁЯШВ
Anti-socialist sociopaths: people deserve to be poor because "the market" is and should be the final arbiter of human worth.
By default people, human beings, are poor. It takes a pretty well developed economy to have the level of luxury most americans have (even some of the poorest ones).
In the natural state, people are poor, as you can see on any underdeveloped african country where the majority of the population lives from subsistence agriculture.
Human failures: people are never EVER responsible for their own destiny.