|
I could see the reason why there would be anger at concentrating so much future capital to a rail-line that in all honesty is running through suburban neighborhoods. Admittedly, it would improve efficiency to a degree by allowing transfers to less used lines, but at the same time, it is relying primarily on a at-grade network that shares its ROWs. (If anything San Francisco and Muni seems to be arguably similar, BART is pretty much a underground suburban train but with the obvious snag of the Bay.) It seems primarily a struggle between urbanities (who honestly probably prefer some improvements to trams) and the suburbs.
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 17:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 14:18 |
|
|
luxury handset posted:any kind of a trail means that enough people walk that route for it to possibly be worth putting a sidewalk down. until now i forgot the technical term for it but it is "desire path" Nothing on the state DOT projects list, but that seems to be only highways. That did lead me to the local Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), which is "by federal law, designated by the governor of each state for every urban area with at least 50,000 residents." They have action plans and maps and everything, and it looks like that specific area falls into the high priority zone. I have yet to find specific plans, though. I've got some more reading to do. This is kind of cool, but man, it seems like the kind of thing that rapidly gets into "corkboard and red string" territory.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 22:41
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:So, from the car it looks like there's a desire path between the two highway overpasses. I'll have to check up close when it's not meltingly hot outside. there may or may not be published plans buried somewhere on their site. it wouldn't hurt to see if you can dig up an outreach person and send them an email. or just call the front desk and start asking questions about who would be the best person to get in touch with. so long as you're nice about it serving the public is kind of their job, and you have a valid concern here
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2018 22:45
|
|
|
fermun posted:California YIMBY chapters seem to be the worst about this for some reason. I'm a recent transplant to Cali and if I had to guess, it's how completely burned into their brain cars and suburbs are. Even the wokest ones still have probably never even been on a tram or subway, to say nothing of a bus, outside of a trip to Europe or something. I remember a friend who studied abroad talking about how in England, people lose their poo poo if they have to take a car trip longer than 2 hours. Which I laughed at, because I do that a couple times a year to go to college and back. Here, it's a 30-45 minute drive to the goddamn bar to hang with my friends, and no one seems to mind but me. I can't speak to San Fran, nothing about that town seems good or enjoyable, but I'm a STEM person, and I know what kind of stunted Randian goons get churned out by US tech schools. So I can believe they're a problem. I'm in DSA and a member of the YIMBYs here. Been pulling my hair out trying to get the dumbshit DSA kids to join up, you attend two meetings and you're a voting member. Total voting members usually in the low 20s. There's about 10 regular members of the DSA Housing and Homelessness group. Can't be bothered to attend, but a couple showed up to protest the first meeting, with 'PHIMBY' signs et al. Which my first reaction was like 'Yea no duh. Public housing too, why the gently caress you think I'm here goddamnit?' As though NIMBYs don't oppose public housing or something? It's like the lefty version of reading 'Black Lives Matter' to mean 'White Lives Don't'. No rear end in a top hat, you're just looking for a way to misinterpret the message and give yourself a reason for being the pissy you were already being. Fuckin' sigh. This isn't meant as a slam on DSA national, chapter I was in back east was legit. Everyone in California is so narcissitic, up their own rear end, provincial, shortsighted and ineffectual, including the WokeyDokes, it's like living in the Simpsons' Springfield or something. But yea, our group I managed to spike an endorsement for a Dem candidate who had a lot of positive murmurs (they'd be the dem that completed a veto-proof majority against our GOP mayor) by pointing out that in the speech, delivered by a representative, they committed theirself to height restrictions around an under-construction train stop. It's not built up at all right now, in fact its an industrial/big box commercial area near a highway at the moment. I raise my hand, ask what the sense is in restricting density around transit, especially when to do so means wasting the billions going into the construction of the line that's coming anyway, and what the gently caress a 'veto proof majority' means when the deciding member of that majority is so contemptuous of us they sent a rep to deliver a speech that flat out argued for NIMBYism. Which put some blood in the water and turns out lots of people think the same way, you just need to be the one person not under the 'California Nice' vow of silence regarding talking poo poo. Our founder is also an ex-crustie anarchist. So that might be why our group is a little bit more than a PR firm for local developers. Where I'm going with this, is, if anyone has the ability to join their YIMBY club, do so. Be the loud lefty voice in the room. One person speaking is a drat sizeable caucus in a room of 10-20, and you'll probably pull along with you the people who understand on a gut-level that building apartments for people making 90k+ per year isn't going to help anyone making 30k, even if you put in 'affordable' housing at 60% of AMI (or 50k per year for a 1BR) but aren't used to pulling apart bad data, bad logic, or rocking the boat. Entryism, wonderful thing. Side note, I feel like I'm the only person who doesn't understand how affordable housing pegged to a percentage of the median income is supposed to help poor people? The targets are usually 10% or so of units, and pegged to a high percentage of the (already high) median income in that neighborhood. Example 200 units, in a neighborhood of average income 70k, and 20 of them are for people making 60%, or 42k, of the median. Those market rate units are going to go (here in major metro Cali, no one cares how it works in Bungler's Gulch or Watsontown) to people making 100k, and up, minimum. That's what the market is right now. The way the median works, is you add 20 members to the population below median, and 180 members above, and the median rises, taking the affordable housing with it. Repeat with every apartment that gets built, and every affordable unit becomes steadily less so, until your 'affordable' housing is housing early-career lawyers and doctors and such. PipHelix fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Aug 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 02:05
|
|
|
In conclusion, California is a land of contrasts, and most of the citizenry should be put in a burlap sack and thrown into the sea. The billionaires will be saved, to be taxed for transit and public housing (as well as healthcare, education, etc) in a manner akin to Mad Max's stint as a blood bag. We'll put the lovely dry-rotted million dollar 1BR bungalows to the torch, and build high speed rail on the ashes, connecting urban centers as dense as downtown Seoul or higher. is/ought, and all that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 02:16
|
|
|
PipHelix posted:Side note, I feel like I'm the only person who doesn't understand how affordable housing pegged to a percentage of the median income is supposed to help poor people? The targets are usually 10% or so of units, and pegged to a high percentage of the (already high) median income in that neighborhood. Example 200 units, in a neighborhood of average income 70k, and 20 of them are for people making 60%, or 42k, of the median. Those market rate units are going to go (here in major metro Cali, no one cares how it works in Bungler's Gulch or Watsontown) to people making 100k, and up, minimum. That's what the market is right now. The way the median works, is you add 20 members to the population below median, and 180 members above, and the median rises, taking the affordable housing with it. Repeat with every apartment that gets built, and every affordable unit becomes steadily less so, until your 'affordable' housing is housing early-career lawyers and doctors and such. it's better than nothing, and extracting more affordable units from developers for the sake of concessions is something that the local planning authority can do at no cost, which is good if you have zero budget for public housing yeah it sucks but it is pretty much the best that can be done within the constraints most planning agencies face which is low resources, narrow regulatory authority, and not needing to enact a new plan or gain broader governmental approval which will certainly be shot down when developers go golfing with the mayor
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 02:32
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:yeah it sucks That's basically all I'm looking for. Seems like a lot of people think it's actually really helping, based on how much they pat themselves on the back when something like the project I described gets built. 'Better than nothing' is drat faint praise though. Generally I round things like that down to 'nothing'. At the very least, I feel like if it's in their power to dictate what they do dictate, it should be within reason to push the bounds a little more. Have a staggered scale at least, where of the 20 apartments, 10 are for 60%, 5 are for 55% and 5 are for 50% AMI, or some such. Or hell, 15% affordable or 20%. Salami slice the system until they yell uncle. Been meaning to go by the planning boards and get a seat, lot of the local YIMBY's have been doing that, but it's more of a time investment than I can currently pony up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 03:04
|
|
|
fermun posted:In my experience, the most important tenant of YIMBYism in practice, has been fighting against the rights of tenants and enshrining the exclusionary practices of wealthy property owners and developers to build more housing for those like them, the wealthy urbanist. How on earth can you ignore SB 827, which was specifically designed to upzone Richmond and Sunset? That and London Breed's election are basically the two hottest YIMBY topics of the past year. The YIMBY project has proven in every single conceivable way to be 100% against exclusionary zoning and has focused entirely on upzoning rich neighborhoods. You can't comment on YIMBYism if you don't know what they actually believe, say, and want to do. Troy Queef posted:Any thoughts on this? YIMBYs aren't against public housing, they're against public housing being an excuse to not do development period. The solution is lots of infill and market rate middle class housing and anything else is a bandaid, and the way to do that is massive upzoning and deregulation of land use. Otherwise, it's only profitable to build luxury. Kim Jong Il fucked around with this message at 03:14 on Aug 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 03:08
|
|
|
PipHelix posted:At the very least, I feel like if it's in their power to dictate what they do dictate, it should be within reason to push the bounds a little more. Have a staggered scale at least, where of the 20 apartments, 10 are for 60%, 5 are for 55% and 5 are for 50% AMI, or some such. Or hell, 15% affordable or 20%. Salami slice the system until they yell uncle. planning agencies generally have very little leverage relative to developers, especially if the zoning ordinances or current land use plans are inflexible. like the idea is to take a project which is at 90-95% of total legal build out and let them push it to 110% or so with a variance, meaning more profit for the developer, if they set some aside for affordable housing. but, if the current land use is open sky (say, theoretically, they could put a 20 story/200 unit building there and are just going for 10 stories/100 units) and the project is way less than could theoretically be built but still nets a nice profit then that variance is much less attractive i appreciate your fire to fight the system and do! something! but, it is critical to understand that often planning agencies are the front lines of affordable housing advocacy and they have shoestring resources and paper thin political support. like extract what you can from private industry but if you push it too far you risk political intervention. and historically, the arcana of planning procedure rallies little public support as your plans get ravaged by a pissed off city council being lashed by local lobbyists to get you to back off. all they have to do is stamp you as anti business or even worse, as a threat to the local school system and you're toast in terms of who can mobilize more of the local electorate Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 03:20 on Aug 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 03:17
|
|
|
Sorry, not implying they're putting up a single 20 story building. This is Cali after all. It's a large development on a currently hugely wasted land parcel that the government is dead-set on giving away to developers for nothing. The decision of what to do with it has been presented as giving it to one of two private developers to turn into ugly, car-centered Villiage Pointe style condo/mall developments, with almost nobody on the left even suggesting the city build something there itself. Yea. It's pretty frustrating. Talking to people here, I feel like I'm trying to feed vegetables to a kid who only likes Chicken Nuggets, and also is starving to death.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 03:38
|
|
|
PipHelix posted:Sorry, not implying they're putting up a single 20 story building. i was just using that as a theoretical example of how planners can extract affordable housing from developers using the tools they have available if you're a local planning agency, you can't force anyone to do anything. the basic paradigm is to assign all land in your jurisdiction some kind of zone, which has attached to it a list of permissible uses, densities, etc. what is actually built there is up to the private market, working within the broad regulations set by the zoning maps and ordinances if the largest structure which can be built on a plot of land is four story low rise housing, but the developer really, really wants to put five stories of condos and a couple retail units there, great! we will grant you a waiver for that and let you color outside of the lines, but in return we want you to set aside X housing units at Y discount for people making Z or less income. the developer makes more money, some workforce housing is created, everyone is happy but, if the land is zoned high rise and the developer is only building ultra-luxe apartments at maybe 60% of the theoretical maximum of what can be built, the planner says "um, excuse me, can you perhaps put in some affor-" and the developer laughs and closes the door. we don't need your waiver, pal, take a walk now there's ways to give planners some teeth. if they're backed up by some regional or metropolitan planning agency which can asses projects of regional impact and revoke permits if they want to, then they have a lot more muscle to wrangle developers with. or maybe there's some kind of overlay district meant to mitigate runaway housing price inflation that can just squash proposed developments. typically this is not the case
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 03:45
|
|
|
Yea, I get all that. I think the problem was moving from NYC to here, and moving here just after reading the Power Broker. Hard to look at a hosed up situation like this and not wish you had a little of that Bob Moses juice to just shove a metro line straight through a La Jolla or Marin County or Malibu. Rip down a block or three of crappy speculative urban cabins and put up a big old public housing block. Not ask the developers, not even tell them. Just loving do what needs doing with them irrelevant to the process. Obviously, he went up against rich folks like, two times, early in his career, and after that almost exclusively picked fights with nobodies, and outside NYC only built for those who would become NIMBYs, and in NYC built his housing so destructively he made more slums than he cleared. But you know, that kind of power existed once, however misapplied. And of course were *I* to harness the power of the Dark Side, I of course would rule the galaxy justly and wisely. PipHelix fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Aug 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 04:14
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:i was just using that as a theoretical example of how planners can extract affordable housing from developers using the tools they have available Wouldn't it also be reasonable to zone things as "High-Density Residential requiring 25% affordable" to start with?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 04:53
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Wouldn't it also be reasonable to zone things as "High-Density Residential requiring 25% affordable" to start with? you can't dictate things like that in a zoning code typically. first off, how often are you going to update the code to determine what is affordable? that's a political football for sure. any kind of a zoning code that has a direct socioeconomic component is highly politicized and could get overturned (basically the mayor or whoever can't make zoning codes but can tell the planning office to knock it off and stop being cute or you're all fired) and it might even be struck down by a court. it's a stretch of the police power to not only dictate uses, but also possible residents - using zoning codes for economic segregation has been challenged before - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Laurel_doctrine - and it could be challenged from the other direction as well. finally, using the zoning code to enforce affordable housing is a pretty inefficient tool, it's only used as frequently as it is as sort of a band aid however, the planning office can do whatever they want when it comes to granting variances. they could let you go from 1.5 to 1.6 floor area ratio if the lead developer comes to our office and pats his head and rubs his tummy. again this might get you in legal trouble but there's a lot less legal restriction on what you can do with special exceptions from the zoning code Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Aug 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 05:12
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:How on earth can you ignore SB 827, which was specifically designed to upzone Richmond and Sunset? That and London Breed's election are basically the two hottest YIMBY topics of the past year. The YIMBY project has proven in every single conceivable way to be 100% against exclusionary zoning and has focused entirely on upzoning rich neighborhoods. You can't comment on YIMBYism if you don't know what they actually believe, say, and want to do. As originally written, SB 827 was nothing but a gentrification engine which immediately upzoned all areas with decent public transit and would have displaced the poor in areas with low property values but decent transit. It also allowed for outlying areas to continue to be NIMBYs by just cutting back on bus line service. It was later amended to be better and include some amendments to help with displacement and gentrification, but from the start it was written without any consulting with any advocacy groups. It was also written by Scott Wiener who literally no one but YIMBYs and moneyed interests trust, so no tenant's rights groups got on board because he's the kind of dude that you can't trust to amend things again. Hell, he abstained from the DCCC vote on whether to support or oppose prop 10, repeal of Costa Hawkins to allow rent control to become legal again in California, even when he knew that the SF DCCC would vote in support of it. He also abstained from the vote on Prop C, creating a up to 0.5% tax on corporate incomes above $50M (industry determing the specific rate) which would house thousands of SF's homeless and expand the shelter/navigation center bed count by 1000 (the current average nightly waitlist). How the hell did he think he was going to upzone areas of single family homes without even trying to getting tenants groups on board, anyhow? London Breed is also not very good on anything pro-tenant (she did find funding for June's Prop F, which doesn't take effect until June 2019 and already had funding secured in November's Prop C, so she could've saved work by endorsing Prop C), she has ramped up homeless sweeps, and has not endorsed Prop C nor Prop 10. During her time as president of the board of supervisors, she authored a shockingly small amount of legislation during her tenure, and never even met with her constituents at Midtown. I support a massive upzoning to mid-rise buildings (to about 10 +/- 2 stories) but I think that tenant protections with teeth for existing residents have to be factored in from the start and given actual serious weight in terms of what the bill will do in their neighborhoods. I also think that it needs an on-site inclusionary housing target and that the upzoning should be phased-in by zip code from highest income to lowest within a census-designated area over about 8-10 years and should also phase in earlier for areas which currently have a high percentage of single family homes. There should also be vacancy taxes, and we need to repeal Prop 13. I also want a public bank both state-wide (which is endorsed by the state Democratic party) and locally so that SF's ~$30B that currently sits in private banks could instead be investing in the city, including funding the building of public housing, which I think should exist at all income levels using an expanded SF Mayor's Office of Housing Ownership program. There's a lot more that I want and a lot of these things are something that will be big fights, but they are worth having as goals even if you accept compromises and by setting them as initial goals you can get better legislation. YIMBYism as I've seen it expressed, is a fundamentally libertarian capitalist ideology, it starts from a compromised position of doing what the large developers and landlords would like to have changed and doesn't have an answer for what happens when the developers build enough high end that they see a luxury housing demand decline so move on to where it's more profitable to build in another city, another state, another country, or hell, their investors just move on to another non-construction investment. Over the last 40-50 years we've seen a massive divestment from the housing market by the public sector, HUD's budget is inflation-adjusted something like 1/5 of what it was 40 years ago, Prop 13 cripples city property tax income and prevents cities from actually having the kind of tax income to build the housing that is needed but which the private sector is not building. These are things that can be undone. YIMBYs keep throwing existing residents under the bus over and over under the technocratic idea that private industry will build to their needs eventually after it meets current luxury demand. I'm saying hey, we can work together and be allies if you factor in a chunk of these priorities.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 08:02
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Wouldn't it also be reasonable to zone things as "High-Density Residential requiring 25% affordable" to start with? There are people who actually think like this. If a real estate market is supply and demand based, requiring below market rate units reduces the profit incentive to build more housing, which means you'll get less new housing supply, which raises rents. If the market is cost-based, then the developer will have to raise rents on the market rate units in the development to pay for the subsidized ones; that's just a shell game, total affordability stays the same. If you want to subsidize something, don't put the subsidy's cost solely on a thing you want more of.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 08:24
|
|
|
The only way to decommodify housing is to build so much of it that it's value will only be based on utility. We can't do that without first absorbing all of the market rate demand and then using the city to constantly build new units of housing to keep rents fixed or drive them down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 08:50
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:The only way to decommodify housing is to build so much of it that it's value will only be based on utility. b-b-but muh free markets 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 09:33
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
fermun posted:As originally written, SB 827 was nothing but a gentrification engine which immediately upzoned all areas with decent public transit and would have displaced the poor in areas with low property values but decent transit. It also allowed for outlying areas to continue to be NIMBYs by just cutting back on bus line service. It was later amended to be better and include some amendments to help with displacement and gentrification, but from the start it was written without any consulting with any advocacy groups. It was also written by Scott Wiener who literally no one but YIMBYs and moneyed interests trust, so no tenant's rights groups got on board because he's the kind of dude that you can't trust to amend things again. Hell, he abstained from the DCCC vote on whether to support or oppose prop 10, repeal of Costa Hawkins to allow rent control to become legal again in California, even when he knew that the SF DCCC would vote in support of it. He also abstained from the vote on Prop C, creating a up to 0.5% tax on corporate incomes above $50M (industry determing the specific rate) which would house thousands of SF's homeless and expand the shelter/navigation center bed count by 1000 (the current average nightly waitlist). How the hell did he think he was going to upzone areas of single family homes without even trying to getting tenants groups on board, anyhow? And really, it just makes sense that any area around decent transit SHOULD have a fairly high population density allowed. It makes zero sense to invest in good transit -- especially in cases like rail or BRT -- and then block people from actually accessing said transit by having mandatory low-density housing. It's totally ludicrous.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 11:09
|
|
|
Not all housing is the same, and you very well may have affordable family-sized housing torn down (since 827 covered what 97% of SF?) for luxury studios, and of course then you have the issue of rent-displacement of other neighbors. You can't build one particular type of housing stock and pretend it will equalize prices in other types. We know it didn't work in Portland. It was an extreme measure to address an issue that actually is far more complex than "just build." Ardennes fucked around with this message at 11:43 on Aug 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 11:23
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Not all housing is the same, and you very well may have affordable family-sized housing torn down (since 827 covered what 97% of SF?) for luxury studios, and of course then you have the issue of rent-displacement of other neighbors. You can't build one particular type of housing stock and pretend it will equalize prices in other types. We know it didn't work in Portland. Just build solves 60% of the problem, IE the part of the market that can afford new housing at 80% of AMI or more. So yeah we should upzone 97% of everything and let the private developers redevelop as much of the city as the banks will finance. Then once all of that investment has been done the city should come in and keep building to drive down rent prices. Hopefully a massive redeveloped of the city combined with mandatory inclusion of affordable units (10%) would produce a significant increase in affordable housing. Like we should be encouraging 100k new units being built. KingFisher fucked around with this message at 11:52 on Aug 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 11:48
|
|
|
Does anyone have anything on planning/housing *outside* of SF/the Bay Area/California....? (I live in NJ, going to be living in Florida near West Palm Beach...This whole California-focused thing feels like it'd be better in a California-focused tbh? Like, when I see DCCC I don't even know what it's referring to since it's obv not the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee...)
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 11:57
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:Just build solves 60% of the problem, IE the part of the market that can afford new housing at 80% of AMI or more. Those new units will change the rent dynamics in the neighborhood, pushing out previous tenants and eliminating existing afforable housing, and those afforable units aren't going to be enough. It is also unlikely the city is going to "keep building either." Also, those new units aren't going to be gear towards poor-families but upper middle-class singles. Arguably it doesn't solve anything if anything makes the issue worse. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 13:10 on Aug 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 12:50
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Those new units will change the rent dynamics in the neighborhood, pushing out previous tenants and eliminating existing afforable housing, and those afforable units aren't going to be enough. It is also unlikely the city is going to "keep building either." Also, those new units aren't going to be gear towards poor-families but upper middle-class singles. All of what you describe will already happen if no new housing is built. When a city is growing and people with high incomes are moving in all of those effects are the result. At least with redevelopment you can absorb some of that new high income demand and less people will be displaced. Like if you got 10k new households a year moving to the city and build no new housing, then 10k existing households (at minimum, if rents go up more could be) will get displaced if the new people are even slightly more affluent than the existing population. It's pure madness to not build enough housing to absorb all of the increased demand. And yes I agree cities are unlikely to keep building, but that's because 100% of home owners are violently opposed to the decommodification of thier largest asset. KingFisher fucked around with this message at 13:57 on Aug 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 13:52
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:All of what you describe will already happen if no new housing is built. Newer developments usually accerlate genetrification and the "hipness" of a neighborhood by attraching more people to it in the first place (as well as bringing in more retail devoted to their clientale). More development in this context accelerates this process. Those people may not move into in the first place unless they are drawn to that location. You are inducing debate in this sense by coverting neighborhoods to be attractive to the upper middle class. Also, cities ie municipal governments aren't going to be building serious new public housing because the federal government won't back them up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 14:04
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Newer developments usually accerlate genetrification and the "hipness" of a neighborhood by attraching more people to it in the first place (as well as bringing in more retail devoted to their clientale). More development in this context accelerates this process. Those people may not move into in the first place unless they are drawn to that location. I'm not sure how to tell you this, but if you are a high income person moving to a new city. The "hipness" of an area doesn't matter of you need someplace to live near your job. So the people living in existing neighborhoods will be displaced regardless. And since the new people can afford higher rents than the existing residents the average rent for the area will go up even with 0 redevelopment. This will cause economic displacement of people who aren't literally displaced. The housing market is musical chairs but who sits is decided by ability to pay, not speed to sit. The only way to keep rents from going up is to build enough chairs for new people as they join the game. Usually new people moving to a city for jobs (like in Seattle and San Fransisco which have the worst housing markets in the country) have high incomes and we should build fancy chairs for them, if we don't they will just rent the middle class chairs, and then middle class will rent the poor people chairs, and the poor people will leave the city. Like what's you answer for 10k new people a year moving to a city due job growth? Tell them that they are only allowed to live in new tract SFH homes in the exurbs and they have to commute to work via single occupancy cars? If you oppose redevelopment then you support a greater number of people being displaced which is the more morally monsterous position. If 10k people move to a city and only 5k new units of housing are built via redevelopment then only 5k people are displaced. IE only the poorest 5k households, not the 10k poorest which would happen with no redevelopment. There is no argument against "gentrification" that makes a greater number of the poorest people of the city being displaced as morally acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 14:18
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:I'm not sure how to tell you this, but if you are a high income person moving to a new city. The "hipness" of an area doesn't matter of you need someplace to live near your job. So the people living in existing neighborhoods will be displaced regardless. And since the new people can afford higher rents than the existing residents the average rent for the area will go up even with 0 redevelopment. This will cause economic displacement of people who aren't literally displaced. Btw, rich people honestly do care where they are living and there is certainly a price premium on certain neighborhoods or a city itself. They very well may look at different options, specifically if studios or 1br aren't necessarily available. In Portland, they kept on building studios/singles in premium areas until that particular housing market was oversaturated, and guess what it didn't help working people who needed larger afforable apartments. There are different types of "chairs." It is easy to oppose a certain type of redevelopment that is singuarly focused on disrupting neighborhoods to build a specific type of housing (studios/1 br condos), and doesn't take into account pretty much any other factor. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 15:08 on Aug 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 14:34
|
|
|
"KingFisher posted:I'm not sure how to tell you this, but if you are a high income person moving to a new city. The "hipness" of an area doesn't matter of you need someplace to live near your job. So the people living in existing neighborhoods will be displaced regardless. And since the new people can afford higher rents than the existing residents the average rent for the area will go up even with 0 redevelopment. This will cause economic displacement of people who aren't literally displaced. In the absence of rent control, yes, you're right. I haven't yet strangled the young professionals in the YIMBY club who whine about rent control 'valuing the people already there over the people coming in', but I'm getting close. People moving cross country to a place like San Fran or Seattle can afford the rent, or if not, their employer can pull some of that Cayman Islands/Ireland money out and spend it on them. People who lived in San Fran when it wasn't loving Thunderdome usually can't. Another, less value-neutralizing way of saying it is 'rent control only helps the poor and elderly at the expense of young professionals with valuable skills!'. That's not to say the only people moving into hot neighborhoods are high-paid professionals. I knew a girl moved to NYC with no job, no housing lined up, and almost no money in the bank. In 2016. I think my testicles retracted into my stomach when she laid out her situation. Annnnnnd she didn't make it. Short term, I guess I'm saying Triage wise, I can't imagine what can be done to help those people. Also, rent control helps people immediately, unlike these multi-generational pharaonic projects laid out by people who think public housing is 'unrealistic'. Letting the developers build out until they've taken ALL the slack out of the market, as though actors in markets are Wile E Coyote running off a cliff and wouldn't self govern, slowing construction as demand slackens, and asymptotically approaching that point, would require decades. Even if that worked, you're talking about decades of waiting and rising rents BEFOREthe government rides in to the rescue, doing things that are difficult now, and will be more difficult when the cost of doing so has ballooned with the cost of land, now that every parcel of land that could house, feed or entertain some tech Dauphin has been dedicated to the purpose As to non-Cali issues. I used to live in the Upper Manhattan/Bronx area. Moved a year ago, but I remember Inwood was getting ripped up. My mom's friend's brother just got offered 80k to move out of his place on rent controlled place on Dyckman. Gonna be a drat shame when the Cachapas place with the shark empanadas turns into a loving Jamaba Juice. Not quite NJ, but probably closer than the last few pages of this thread have gotten. *Is* there a serious gentrification problem in Florida? Miami, I could see. PipHelix fucked around with this message at 15:21 on Aug 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 15:16
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:Just build solves 60% of the problem, IE the part of the market that can afford new housing at 80% of AMI or more. hope u like traffic jams
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 15:18
|
|
|
Can I be a YIMBY until I find an apartment I can buy for a good price, then convert to NIMBY?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 15:27
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:Like what's you answer for 10k new people a year moving to a city due job growth? You know that happens regardless, right? Either the new people move in or the people you gentrify out move into those exurbs and commute. And in reality, it's the poor people every time. Also, time for me to check if I'm on crazy pills again. This might be my years in NYC talking, but no one, NO ONE on this thread, or in the YIMBY club has discussed vacant investment pied a terres. I know in at least Seattle and Vancouver it's a huge problem too. How do you intend to 'build your way out' when there's effectively infinite amounts of money out there buying the luxury housing you're building for your betters, but not to live in but to grow a portfolio, or in the case that we REALLY got cooking building luxury units, supporting the value of their current portfolio by taking up slack and preventing a market glut? You're talking about homeowners resisting the decommodifying of their SFH's, while in the same breath assuming the houses of Saud and Goldman-Sachs are going to sit idly by and let you do that to their luxury housing investments? Anyway, it's crazy how much good art costs guys. Fuckin, Warhol will run you into the tens of millions. This must be due to rich people not having enough art to put on their walls. Only way to fix this is not to make art priced affordably, but to subsidize the creation of highly valuable art. Eventually rich people will have enough art, and stop buying it all up, and then the price will go down, lowering the cost of the art they already own by millions and millions of dollars, until I can get a nice kinetic sculpture at the coffee shop for 50 bucks. Edit to add: Got a relative works in a museum, perhaps the hosed state of high art and how it applies to the hosed state of housing maybe isn't as obvious as it seems to me. The wealthy have unimaginable amounts of money. So much that they have almost nowhere to park it in order to get a return. So they park it, among other things but also especially, in art and housing. This has the salutary effect of driving up the cost of those investments, causing them to appreciate. The 'pump' part of a pump and dump strategy. In art, due to the restricted supply of art enough people can agree on as being 'good', and the amount of money sloshing around, there are TONS TTTTOOOOOOOOONNNNSSS of forgeries. Forgeries no one is interested in unmasking, because they understand that they very well might own one, sinking the value of their portfolio. In housing value is dependent on the scarcity of the good and also the market's perception of the good driving demand. (Lots of forgeries are beautiful paintings in their own right but not valuable because no one wants them, and it's not like millions of people got raptured up in 2008 and that's why housing got cheap). What the Build Out! people are advocating, as I see it, is the generation of highly appreciating assets for the wealthy to buy, under the assumption that we can build so much so fast that not only can we outpace and reduce the appreciation of what's being built getting reinvested in more property, that feeding this engine fuel will somehow cause it to lose steam. But also to continue on until we've absorbed ALL the liquid assets of the global 1%, and also absorb the emergency money they bust out when they realize what's happening to their portfolio and also somehow resist them just getting the government to force a stop to it (while of course not thinking we can fight political headwinds enough to build one unit of public housing). It's demons trying to fill homer up with donuts guys. And of course, doing it by letting market forces off the leash, to impoverish the people that market forces naturally enrich. PipHelix fucked around with this message at 15:59 on Aug 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 15:28
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Can I be a YIMBY until I find an apartment I can buy for a good price, then convert to NIMBY? That is I believe how NIMBYs are traditionally made, yes. 'gently caress You I Got Mine'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 15:30
|
|
|
PipHelix posted:You know that happens regardless, right? Either the new people move in or the people you gentrify out move into those exurbs and commute. And in reality, it's the poor people every time. Hey, I'm certainly in favor of punishing vacancy, vacation and AirBnB property taxes. Is the answer more complicated than that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2018 15:51
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:hope u like traffic jams Well that's why we should allow transit oriented development so the new residents aren't required to have a car. I live 2 blocks from a major transit center for this exact reason. So yeah traffic isn't a problem with good policy. If I was the king of Seattle I'd require a dozen 50 story apartment towers be built at every light rail station.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2018 05:01
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:Well that's why we should allow transit oriented development so the new residents aren't required to have a car. I live 2 blocks from a major transit center for this exact reason. first you were saying we should just massively upzone, now it's only around transit stations - or you're leading up to a large scale expansion of the light rail network. while you're rubbing that genie lamp can i get a winning lotto ticket pls? spreadsheet planning is fun and all but at some point you've got to cross the barrier to think about why these plans never quite manifest in reality
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2018 05:04
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:first you were saying we should just massively upzone, now it's only around transit stations - or you're leading up to a large scale expansion of the light rail network. while you're rubbing that genie lamp can i get a winning lotto ticket pls? We did just approve a massive regional light rail plan going into the next 20+ years. There are very good reasons why folks flock to the coasts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2018 05:27
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:We did just approve a massive regional light rail plan going into the next 20+ years. There are very good reasons why folks flock to the coasts. Yep and we should maximize the value of that investment. For example the North gate mall in Seattle is being redeveloped. The developer is proposing 1200 units of housing, it should be 12,000. This development with 20+ towers is on a smaller piece of land in a Vancouver suburb: http://shapeproperties.com/projects/the-city-of-lougheed/
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2018 05:44
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:We did just approve a massive regional light rail plan going into the next 20+ years. There are very good reasons why folks flock to the coasts. uhh dallas has the largest light rail system in the nation and is still expanding it? seattle's system clocks in just below charlotte, north carolina. if you're going to be costally smug at least be factual about it and you're missing my point besides. its great to say "lets build sixty story residential towers" on paper but why doesn't that happen in reality? there's a little word, it is externalities  value capture is nice and all but without strong central government direction and coordination (which doesn't exist anywhere in america) really all planning and transportation organizations are just playing catch up to demographic trends and the market Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 06:04 on Aug 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2018 06:02
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:uhh dallas has the largest light rail system in the nation and is still expanding it? if you're going to be costally smug at least be factual about it No it's because single family home owners are desperate to block any and housing supply from being added to the market and depressing the value of thier house. They use thier political power to enforce segregationist zoning policies limiting development near rail lines. Like in my example tallest thing allowed on the mall site is 6 stories. Zoning is the problem due to racist and classist white liberals in every major city.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2018 06:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 14:18 |
|
|
haha at complaining about white liberals controlling the zoning code when you're still in largely the same transit district, not even a patchwork metro jurisdiction if all you want to do is posture i wont stop you
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2018 06:10
|
|