These 95 Apartments Promised Affordable Rent in SF. Then 6,580 People Applied(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
These 95 Apartments Promised Affordable Rent in SF. Then 6,580 People Applied
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/12/upshot/these-95-apartments-promised-affordable-rent-in-san-francisco-then-6580-people-applied.html
90 comments
You can't fill a city entirely with bankers, tech workers, and other professionals. What about teachers? Police? Those in the restaurant industry?
I don't think anyone is claiming that everyone should have a "human right" to live in SF. But when looking at the city as a systems problem, creating a sustainable system may require these kinds of measures to allow the right mix of people to live in the city.
I don't think anyone is claiming that everyone should have a "human right" to live in SF. But when looking at the city as a systems problem, creating a sustainable system may require these kinds of measures to allow the right mix of people to live in the city.
> teachers? Police? Those in the restaurant industry?
If they can't afford to live in the city then you could not fill the jobs without increasing wages. It's a self balancing problem. Further, higher wages increases the costs of restaurants etc which feeds back into pay.
Planned economies don't work because economies are ridiculously complex. Yet people always want to say 'just this once we need subsidies' for say corn production while ignoring the huge negatives associated with such choices.
If they can't afford to live in the city then you could not fill the jobs without increasing wages. It's a self balancing problem. Further, higher wages increases the costs of restaurants etc which feeds back into pay.
Planned economies don't work because economies are ridiculously complex. Yet people always want to say 'just this once we need subsidies' for say corn production while ignoring the huge negatives associated with such choices.
I asked this of Ed Lee directly at an event at work and he hemmed and hawed and said "how can you be against teachers?". At which I reiterated, "Your new affordability test would allow a new college grad software engineer at Google to get below-market rent; why can't we just pay specific people, say teachers and firefighters with families more?". He had no answer.
My conclusion is that most of our policies are driven by a combination of people not thinking through the consequences and people giving handouts to developers. Sometimes those are the same people :).
My conclusion is that most of our policies are driven by a combination of people not thinking through the consequences and people giving handouts to developers. Sometimes those are the same people :).
It's expensive and all the money ends up in landlords' bank accounts. Not sure taxpayers are into that?
(If the funding came out of property taxes, then at least the money would be both coming and going to land owners, but Prop 13 prevents that.)
(If the funding came out of property taxes, then at least the money would be both coming and going to land owners, but Prop 13 prevents that.)
It's still ends up in federal taxes, and considering social security benefits are based on income it would directly help workers long term.
It would also act as downward pressure on rents as people left the city for better opportunities elsewhere.
It would also act as downward pressure on rents as people left the city for better opportunities elsewhere.
Yes you can. If you fill an entire city with bankers and tech workers, then guess what? They will leave when they have no police, teachers or janitors. OR they will start paying those police, teachers & janitors an appropriate amount.
That’s a reasonable answer, although I think the better solution for those people would be to pay them more. Increase taxes and prices.
I read the other day on the nytimes that a fire chief in the Bay Area makes $500k. Doesn’t it make more sense to pay people better than to create separate classes of people who either pay real world prices or those who get subsidized.
I read the other day on the nytimes that a fire chief in the Bay Area makes $500k. Doesn’t it make more sense to pay people better than to create separate classes of people who either pay real world prices or those who get subsidized.
Also, artists et cetera are fun to have around. Look up the history of the Hotel Chelsea, originally sold as luxury long-stay rooms where wealthy folk could mingle with artists staying in subsidised apartments. The model is coming back into favour in New York.
> measures to allow the right mix of people to live in the city.
So, human engineering, with totally good intentions. Can you define 'right mix of people' in a non-totalitarian way?
So, human engineering, with totally good intentions. Can you define 'right mix of people' in a non-totalitarian way?
Can you survive in a city with no one but bankers and tech people? No police, no resturaunts, no firefighters, no cleaners, app because the closest place they can afford is 4+ hours away? Are you going to take turns with your co-workers to clean the bathroom everyday, take out the trash, and clean the floors? Are you able to pull the long hours tech jobs require and still have time to cook food everyday? How would you even get that food if supermarkets can't keep employees around to stock the shelves?
This is all the extreme end of the situation, and we're not there yet, but it's the path we're on in many cities with San Francisco being at the forefront.
You can't have every worker specialize in to a narrow niche and then suddenly remove half of those niches from your society with no replacement and expect it to run smoothly
This is all the extreme end of the situation, and we're not there yet, but it's the path we're on in many cities with San Francisco being at the forefront.
You can't have every worker specialize in to a narrow niche and then suddenly remove half of those niches from your society with no replacement and expect it to run smoothly
Wow what a nice strawman you have here! All the horrors you've described in so much detail can and will be fixed very nicely by market pressure (if no one is there to clean the bathroom, suddenly janitors will be in high demand and command a nice salary, etc).
Forcing 'the right mix of people' _reeks_ of totalitarian state. Who gets to decide?
Are there going to be income/education quotas? Male vs female? Racial quotes?
Forcing 'the right mix of people' _reeks_ of totalitarian state. Who gets to decide?
Are there going to be income/education quotas? Male vs female? Racial quotes?
Market pressures aren't fixing it, at least not fast enough to prevent a lot of pain to actual living humans. Yea in the long term it might be fixed, but in the here and now people are hurting. When I was out of college and stuck in retail I had to decide whether I was stealing food or medicine that week or going without, because those jobs don't pay enough to live. I am lucky enough to be talented enough at software to get a job doing it, but you can't expect everyone in the population to have those skills.
Expecting market pressure to take care of everyone is condemning people to die. I agree that the market is more efficient, but that efficiency comes without any sort of humanity. There are people who have no talents that are worth enough in our current economic configuration to earn enough to live at market clearing wages. Should we just let them starve or go homeless because of it?
I also agree that planning a 'right mix' of people does reek of totalitarianism, but the other choice isn't any better.
I don't see how letting the rich choose who gets to live a decent life based on whose most useful to them is any less totalarian when our society is channeling more and more wealth everyday to a small group of people.
Expecting market pressure to take care of everyone is condemning people to die. I agree that the market is more efficient, but that efficiency comes without any sort of humanity. There are people who have no talents that are worth enough in our current economic configuration to earn enough to live at market clearing wages. Should we just let them starve or go homeless because of it?
I also agree that planning a 'right mix' of people does reek of totalitarianism, but the other choice isn't any better.
I don't see how letting the rich choose who gets to live a decent life based on whose most useful to them is any less totalarian when our society is channeling more and more wealth everyday to a small group of people.
(1) The usual argument against below-market housing here isn't "screw the poor". It's "this is an ineffective show at a fix for a problem that the market would resolve if we could build to the higher density that current zoning prohibits".
(2) Even if you have only market-rate housing, that doesn't mean the people who can't afford it end up homeless. You can just give them or their landlords money. In the USA, that's Section 8.
Economists generally like Section 8. It gets a bad reputation, because the apartments tend to be shabby; but that's a question of the amount of the subsidy, not the delivery mechanism. For a given total to spend, I'd rather put two people in a run-down $1.5k apartment each than flip a coin, put one of them in a $3k apartment, and leave the other on the street.
(2) Even if you have only market-rate housing, that doesn't mean the people who can't afford it end up homeless. You can just give them or their landlords money. In the USA, that's Section 8.
Economists generally like Section 8. It gets a bad reputation, because the apartments tend to be shabby; but that's a question of the amount of the subsidy, not the delivery mechanism. For a given total to spend, I'd rather put two people in a run-down $1.5k apartment each than flip a coin, put one of them in a $3k apartment, and leave the other on the street.
> I'd rather put two people in a run-down $1.5k apartment each than flip a coin, put one of them in a $3k apartment, and leave the other on the street.
Do you want to get USSR? Because one committee plays God and regulates who lives where. Then some other committee, no doubt well-intentioned, will apply the same logic to groceries. And cars. And salaries. And this is how you become USSR.
Do you want to get USSR? Because one committee plays God and regulates who lives where. Then some other committee, no doubt well-intentioned, will apply the same logic to groceries. And cars. And salaries. And this is how you become USSR.
We're discussing this in the context of people who can't afford market-rate apartments. If the government doesn't step in, then some fraction of these people will work harder and strive, and make it on their own. A different fraction will die on the street.
I don't want people dying on the street. I think more permissive zoning laws would solve a lot of our housing affordability crisis, but not all of it. For the rest, I think subsidies for market-rate housing (like Section 8) are the most efficient and transparent solution, and much less USSR-like than what the linked article describes. What do you think?
I don't want people dying on the street. I think more permissive zoning laws would solve a lot of our housing affordability crisis, but not all of it. For the rest, I think subsidies for market-rate housing (like Section 8) are the most efficient and transparent solution, and much less USSR-like than what the linked article describes. What do you think?
Ah, I thought you were just saying the market should sort it all out. Yea giving money to people whoever need housing so they can find the best fit for themselves does seem like a better choice than just having a few winners and the rest get nothing.
The real answer is that more housing needs to be built if demand is this high, but for various reasons that seems politically unfeasible for most US cities
The real answer is that more housing needs to be built if demand is this high, but for various reasons that seems politically unfeasible for most US cities
I don't honestly believe "we'll just end up paying janitors more" actually works out.
You pay teachers more, you pay policemen more, and your taxes go up. You start paying all the waitresses more, the supermarket workers more, the janitors more, your cost of living just goes up.
Wage isn't really an absolute, it's a ratio to the cost of living. So in response to all their food getting more expensive, their taxes going up, etc, you end up paying all your darling tech/finance workers more. Then you're right back where you started. You've solved absolutely nothing, you've just embiggened some numbers.
You pay teachers more, you pay policemen more, and your taxes go up. You start paying all the waitresses more, the supermarket workers more, the janitors more, your cost of living just goes up.
Wage isn't really an absolute, it's a ratio to the cost of living. So in response to all their food getting more expensive, their taxes going up, etc, you end up paying all your darling tech/finance workers more. Then you're right back where you started. You've solved absolutely nothing, you've just embiggened some numbers.
No, I couldn't live in such a city. If there was nobody to take out the trash we would have to raise more money to increase salaries for garbage men, etc. Some of it, I could live with less of, and some I'd pay more for.
Letting the economy balance itself seems a lot smarter than trying to control it and I think history provides many examples supporting this claim.
Letting the economy balance itself seems a lot smarter than trying to control it and I think history provides many examples supporting this claim.
The people who work in that city shouldn’t be forced to commute 3 hours in and out?
Nobody's forcing them, if their wages do not justify the commute time, they are totally free to stop commuting. Market pressure will do the rest.
You’re completely missing the point, the market pressures are broken by restrictive zoning laws which artificially restrict supply.
That’s why you have 6,580 people who are bidding on 95 affordably priced homes.
The fact that you have 70 people applying per home is what we’d call a signal that those homes are in demand, the problem preventing more supply coming on line to meet that demand is the zoning laws, again.
That’s why you have 6,580 people who are bidding on 95 affordably priced homes.
The fact that you have 70 people applying per home is what we’d call a signal that those homes are in demand, the problem preventing more supply coming on line to meet that demand is the zoning laws, again.
> 70 people applying per home is what we’d call a signal that those homes are in demand
uh, well sure I mean there is probably a ton of demand for $100 4Runners too
uh, well sure I mean there is probably a ton of demand for $100 4Runners too
Car companies frequently introduce smaller and more affordable options when they notice strong sales in baseline models - Honda introduced the HRV because people wanted a cheaper CRV. The tone of your comment suggests you disbelieve my remark but then you made an analogy that supports my comment so I’m not really what point your point is?
Unless your idea is that companies shouldn’t take steps to meet demand and instead try to artificially restrict supply?
Unless your idea is that companies shouldn’t take steps to meet demand and instead try to artificially restrict supply?
That's one business model (e.g. Ferrari, Porsche, Lambourgini, Wedgewood, Breitling, ...), actually increasing supply is another (too many brands to name). I would argue that the brands that increase supply while lowering costs are the ones that do far more good in the world. But if you want to make money, certainly restricting supply can work.
Of course pretending you're one of the restricting supply businesses while in fact increasing supply (ie. Apple) beats both business models by an incredible margin.
And then there is the business model of enforcing your own position by having government goons (rules or actual goons) drive out the competition, which certainly restricts supply (Verizon/AT&T, Suez, Electrabel, Atos Worldline, Total, Shell, Exxon Mobil, Glencore, Gazprom, ING, AXA, BNP Paribas, ... and then there's this tiny little thing called "China")
There's certainly a place for all of these.
Of course pretending you're one of the restricting supply businesses while in fact increasing supply (ie. Apple) beats both business models by an incredible margin.
And then there is the business model of enforcing your own position by having government goons (rules or actual goons) drive out the competition, which certainly restricts supply (Verizon/AT&T, Suez, Electrabel, Atos Worldline, Total, Shell, Exxon Mobil, Glencore, Gazprom, ING, AXA, BNP Paribas, ... and then there's this tiny little thing called "China")
There's certainly a place for all of these.
Enough people with the right skillsets to fill the roles society needs to function.
It's sort of like when the subject of human rights gets brought in the discussion of taxation. There are pragmatic concerns being brought up here for social order. Arguing about rights distracts from practical needs to ensure the public good.
Affordable Rent policies block the free market from increasing wages in the city. Instead of paying workers more, we've asked landlords to make up the difference between a living wage and a poverty one.
is this sarcasm? If not, do you have a reference?
The usual argument is that sf needs more housing supply to meet demand, period, let alone affordable housing.
Edit: see zkms, below.
The usual argument is that sf needs more housing supply to meet demand, period, let alone affordable housing.
Edit: see zkms, below.
I think they're referring to rent controlled apartment... not sure why they think landlords "make up the difference", the landlord simply charges other renters more.
I'm not aware of any studies, but it does seem logical from a system perspective...
The relatively fixed supply of rent-controlled apartments is a random cost-of-living subsidy for low-income workers. Those that "win" can accept lower wages, while the "losers" are forced to compete despite higher cost-of-living (commute or rent). The latter group will get a little more, but not as much as if there was no rent-control. On the employment side, employers may hold jobs open longer hoping for a rent-controlled applicant that will accept lower wages.
Ideally we would have no rent-controlled apartments or enough for everyone that needs it, but anywhere in between is a distorted market that hurts consumers and employees. Eliminating rent control would be my preference, it seems more efficient than subsidizing everyone that needs it (as individuals can choose how to spend their higher wages, whereas rent subsidies always go to rent).
I'm not aware of any studies, but it does seem logical from a system perspective...
The relatively fixed supply of rent-controlled apartments is a random cost-of-living subsidy for low-income workers. Those that "win" can accept lower wages, while the "losers" are forced to compete despite higher cost-of-living (commute or rent). The latter group will get a little more, but not as much as if there was no rent-control. On the employment side, employers may hold jobs open longer hoping for a rent-controlled applicant that will accept lower wages.
Ideally we would have no rent-controlled apartments or enough for everyone that needs it, but anywhere in between is a distorted market that hurts consumers and employees. Eliminating rent control would be my preference, it seems more efficient than subsidizing everyone that needs it (as individuals can choose how to spend their higher wages, whereas rent subsidies always go to rent).
The relatively fixed supply of rent-controlled apartments is a random cost-of-living subsidy for low-income workers
What a perfectly rational explanation. Thank you for not instantly appealing to vague notions of social justice.
Dishearteningly, however, people still do this. When people demand affordable rent but do not get it, many still cry "injustice!". This seems to me to be counterproductive as it causes others to wonder what, if anything, such people do not consider to be a human right.
edit: accidentally left out "not" in first paragraph
Dishearteningly, however, people still do this. When people demand affordable rent but do not get it, many still cry "injustice!". This seems to me to be counterproductive as it causes others to wonder what, if anything, such people do not consider to be a human right.
edit: accidentally left out "not" in first paragraph
> When people demand affordable rent but do not get it, many still cry "injustice!".
Well, it can be interpreted as an injustice. If you have a society that can realistically provide housing and food for everybody, is it not injust to deny handing these things out? The answer depends on what society you're going for. The optimum path is probably neither the extreme of the state providing everybody with everything he needs , nor a dog-eat-dog world in which the idividual gets nothing, no matter his situation.
Well, it can be interpreted as an injustice. If you have a society that can realistically provide housing and food for everybody, is it not injust to deny handing these things out? The answer depends on what society you're going for. The optimum path is probably neither the extreme of the state providing everybody with everything he needs , nor a dog-eat-dog world in which the idividual gets nothing, no matter his situation.
I hear ya. We probably differ on semantics. To me, the modern notion of "justice" seems to be concerned with the answer to the question "What does my fellow man owe me?". The answer to that question is always "nothing". On the other hand, the answer to the question "How ought my fellow man show compassion to me?" is a different question altogether (to me at least). :)
> Can somebody explain why Affordable Rent exists?
Because in large US cities, housing is artificially scarce (and thus pathologically expensive). This artificial scarcity is enforced by zoning laws; which prohibit SROs, rooming houses, and apartments with small floor areas, medium/high-rise apartments, non-family roommates, short-term rentals, buildings above a certain height; whilst requiring stuff like parking, solar panels on the roof, and minimum lot/room/floor areas (that have no justification in genuine safety concerns -- these are all regulations that mandate a certain level of aesthetic/luxury qualities).
The people who have a financial interest in maintaining these zoning laws (which prohibit/delay/obstruct construction of any kind of dense/tall/small/inexpensive housing, of the kind that exist without any problem in actual proper, non-US cities) are single-family homeowners who are making serious money off this artificial scarcity situation.
In this system, subsidised housing (which is generally inaccessible without decade-long waitlists, and meeting extremely narrow criteria (such as having proof of income that's in a narrow range between "low enough to qualify" but also "high enough to be twice the subsidised rent")) has a role as a safety valve to prevent enough coordination that could pose risk to this artificial-scarcity regime. This is not idle theorising -- it worked exactly like that to kill SB827 (a CA state law that would have preempted height limits encoded in local zoning law in areas very close to a subway/train/bus station); where "advocates" for subsidised housing concern-trolled the thing to death with concerns about "displacement".
Because in large US cities, housing is artificially scarce (and thus pathologically expensive). This artificial scarcity is enforced by zoning laws; which prohibit SROs, rooming houses, and apartments with small floor areas, medium/high-rise apartments, non-family roommates, short-term rentals, buildings above a certain height; whilst requiring stuff like parking, solar panels on the roof, and minimum lot/room/floor areas (that have no justification in genuine safety concerns -- these are all regulations that mandate a certain level of aesthetic/luxury qualities).
The people who have a financial interest in maintaining these zoning laws (which prohibit/delay/obstruct construction of any kind of dense/tall/small/inexpensive housing, of the kind that exist without any problem in actual proper, non-US cities) are single-family homeowners who are making serious money off this artificial scarcity situation.
In this system, subsidised housing (which is generally inaccessible without decade-long waitlists, and meeting extremely narrow criteria (such as having proof of income that's in a narrow range between "low enough to qualify" but also "high enough to be twice the subsidised rent")) has a role as a safety valve to prevent enough coordination that could pose risk to this artificial-scarcity regime. This is not idle theorising -- it worked exactly like that to kill SB827 (a CA state law that would have preempted height limits encoded in local zoning law in areas very close to a subway/train/bus station); where "advocates" for subsidised housing concern-trolled the thing to death with concerns about "displacement".
Isn't this every city, everywhere?
Because people (in a democracy) decided that it's not in public's interest to have low paid service providers e.g., teachers, cooks, gov workers, to commute many hours a day.
These affordable places are "Toyotas". They're not million dollar apartments with doorman and valet.
It's okay to disagree, and these are not human rights in the sense that it's written into the constitution, or in UN conventions. Not everything governments do are related to human rights.
These affordable places are "Toyotas". They're not million dollar apartments with doorman and valet.
It's okay to disagree, and these are not human rights in the sense that it's written into the constitution, or in UN conventions. Not everything governments do are related to human rights.
Admittedly not a doorman or a valet, but this one's got a "concierge":
https://housing.sfgov.org/listings/a0W0P00000GRYOoUAP
http://thecivicsf.com/
Apartment #205, income-restricted to between $3258 and $3800/month for a single person, $1303/month. The market units are roughly 3x, though the interior finishes are often nicer. I'm guessing around $700k for a similar condo?
It's a kind of genius. If everyone getting screwed by the SF housing market united, then they could vote for land use changes that would solve the problem. Like, if SF abolished all zoning tomorrow, then a lot of terrible things would happen; but do you really doubt that housing prices would go down? We'd have problems, but not the one big central crushing problem that we have now.
Affordable housing policies divide those people, according to stuff like:
faith in government vs. market solutions
personal eligibility vs. ineligibility for the units
preference between a bad apartment vs. a lottery for a great one
That splits the landowners' natural enemies into warring factions, as we see here.
https://housing.sfgov.org/listings/a0W0P00000GRYOoUAP
http://thecivicsf.com/
Apartment #205, income-restricted to between $3258 and $3800/month for a single person, $1303/month. The market units are roughly 3x, though the interior finishes are often nicer. I'm guessing around $700k for a similar condo?
It's a kind of genius. If everyone getting screwed by the SF housing market united, then they could vote for land use changes that would solve the problem. Like, if SF abolished all zoning tomorrow, then a lot of terrible things would happen; but do you really doubt that housing prices would go down? We'd have problems, but not the one big central crushing problem that we have now.
Affordable housing policies divide those people, according to stuff like:
faith in government vs. market solutions
personal eligibility vs. ineligibility for the units
preference between a bad apartment vs. a lottery for a great one
That splits the landowners' natural enemies into warring factions, as we see here.
I don't think anyone is arguing it's a human right. I think the argument is about displacement. Affordable Housing usually goes to people who have lived in an area for a long time and now can no longer afford it.
Interesting that some people argue affordable housing is good because it allows people to stay in their homes but Prop 13 is bad because it . . . allows people to stay in their homes.
Prop 13 is just a phenomenal transfer of wealth from the young and working class to the old and wealthy. Don’t kid yourself that it was ever about anything else.
What happens if you sell under Prop 13? Does the tax man come calling then?
The price resets for the new owner.
Under Prop 13, the assessed value is X when you buy it and can only be increased by up to ~2% per year even if your home went up in value by much more. This chains together over long periods of time, so that if you bought a place 20 years ago you are now paying property tax on at most X * 1.02^20. If the new owner paid you 5X for the home, they now pay property tax against that value moving forward.
Under Prop 13, the assessed value is X when you buy it and can only be increased by up to ~2% per year even if your home went up in value by much more. This chains together over long periods of time, so that if you bought a place 20 years ago you are now paying property tax on at most X * 1.02^20. If the new owner paid you 5X for the home, they now pay property tax against that value moving forward.
It seems to me that the seller should pay a hefty tax on that 5x value. Why should you get rich on appreciation that you didn't pay taxes on? I get the feeling the answer is more about greed and less about helping people stay in their homes.
Do you feel the same way about social security?
Ideally the free market would take care of this. But homeowners have been able to hijack the market through rent seeking behaviours that tightly regulate housing. It's very hard to break the market dominance of land owners. Until someone can develop a palletable political solution to do so affordable housing will have to be government mandated or provided.
Further there will always be a segment of the population who can't afford to house themselves (note this is much smaller than those who can't afford housing due to the dysfunctional market). As a society we should be looking out for people who need extra help.
Edit: I'm getting downvoted on this. That's fine, but can someone explain what I said wrong?
Further there will always be a segment of the population who can't afford to house themselves (note this is much smaller than those who can't afford housing due to the dysfunctional market). As a society we should be looking out for people who need extra help.
Edit: I'm getting downvoted on this. That's fine, but can someone explain what I said wrong?
can someone explain what I said wrong?
I agree with you but there is still a problem to be solved: a LOT of essential public services are provided by people that have salaries far lower than required for rents in a particular area.
Teachers, nurses, police officers, etc.
Teachers, nurses, police officers, etc.
Sure, but wouldn’t a city have to increase salaries to allow someone to be a nurse or teacher in an expensive area? Similarly, one can be a nurse or teacher in a lower cost of living place. No one forces you to teach in SF.
No. They wouldn’t. They’d just allow the quality of government services to degrade.
Example: every city the United States.
It’s like saying “traffic is good because it forces to government to build more roads.” No, it does not.
Example: every city the United States.
It’s like saying “traffic is good because it forces to government to build more roads.” No, it does not.
No one forces you to have kids, either.
No kids, no need for teachers or any kind of education system.
No kids, no need for teachers or any kind of education system.
Unrelated to my comment? Are there a lack of teachers in SF?
If those people start being forced to move out, you'll quickly find that salaries will rise to compensate.
Supply and demand is very simple.
Keeping rents artificially cheap is just a backdoor way of keeping salaries artificially low.
Supply and demand is very simple.
Keeping rents artificially cheap is just a backdoor way of keeping salaries artificially low.
Because the left thinks that the fix for housing shortage caused by governmental regulation starving the market of housing is for the government to intervene further and subsidize the thing they made unobtainable.
Speaking as someone who routinely votes for the most extreme crazy left-wing loon on the ballot in local elections (disappointing choice this time - only one, the "Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition" party candidate), I'd much rather they did it by forcing the building of a lot more houses, but that seems less palatable to the rich than subsidies.
How much more are you, as a hypothetical citizen of these cities, willing to pay in taxes to pay for the higher costs of living for your cops, fire fighters, and teachers.
How much more are you willing to pay at the grocery store to hire the checkers and stockers. At a restaurant for the cooks, waiters and waitresses, and cleaning staff? For your taxi, your delivery men, your trash men, your utilities, plumbing, construction, road work, and so forth.
Affordable rent helps to keep your costs, as a hypothetical citizen, low as well.
How much more are you willing to pay at the grocery store to hire the checkers and stockers. At a restaurant for the cooks, waiters and waitresses, and cleaning staff? For your taxi, your delivery men, your trash men, your utilities, plumbing, construction, road work, and so forth.
Affordable rent helps to keep your costs, as a hypothetical citizen, low as well.
[deleted]
Another take on it, rent is like farming. If you pull too much out of the system, the soil gets degraded and the salinity rises, poisoning the crops.
Affordable rent is a way (albeit deeply flawed) of trying to maintain the health of the system. A better way would be to cap profits on property through taxes. Make it too expensive to strip the system of its nutrients.. to continue with the mixed metaphor.
Affordable rent is a way (albeit deeply flawed) of trying to maintain the health of the system. A better way would be to cap profits on property through taxes. Make it too expensive to strip the system of its nutrients.. to continue with the mixed metaphor.
In Toronto highly-trained cops are leaving because salaries in the exurbs are comparable and afford a higher standard of living (because you’re not forking as much over for housing).
This is a loss for the city because training is expensive. This movement is being repeated across professions.
This is a loss for the city because training is expensive. This movement is being repeated across professions.
This is completely rational behavior, if Toronto wants to keep its police officers they should offer a higher wage.
Which means they need more money, which means a tax hike. The tax hike is voted upon by the city citizens, and denied.
Instead, the citizens become more likely to complain about the lack of responsiveness of police, and use it to justify their choices to not pay more taxes for those "lazy police."
Cops, teachers, janitors - these are poor candidates for "market forces".
Instead, the citizens become more likely to complain about the lack of responsiveness of police, and use it to justify their choices to not pay more taxes for those "lazy police."
Cops, teachers, janitors - these are poor candidates for "market forces".
So the citizens move, the city shrinks, housing becomes more affordable and they don't need to raise salaries as the cost of living is lower. It's all an equilibrium, you can't just see one side while ignoring the other. All of those occupations are defined by market forces claiming they aren't is economic ignorance.
What kind of society do you want to live in? Do you want walled gardens of luxe, and a ghetto outside for the cleaners?
Living in these places is definitely not a human right. But then again, neither is it necessary for us to allow you to live there either even if you can buy the most palatial home in the city. It cuts both ways.
TIL there are people who equate wanting to stay in the city they grew up in as an equivalent level of entitlement to owning a Ferrari.
...and they consider themselves "left leaning"
...and they consider themselves "left leaning"
I want to be a software engineer making FANG $, but live in the tiny Midwestern town I grew up in. It is unethical for society to not provide this for me.
Nobody said anything about guaranteeing "FANG" jobs, just a reasonably priced place to live to people who grew up in SF.
Sorry I wasn't totally clear. I currently have a FANG job, but I am forced to live in a high COL locale to maintain it.
Living anywhere near my hometown is simply not an option; I doubt there is a single employed software engineer in a 30 mile radius, and certainly not at the same level of comp.
So, if I want to be a well paid software engineer, I can't live in Iowa. If I want to live in Iowa, I can't be a well paid software engineer. If you want to live in the Bay, don't be a teacher. If you want to be a teacher, don't live in the Bay. If enough folks follow that rationale, Bay Area teachers will get paid more.
Living anywhere near my hometown is simply not an option; I doubt there is a single employed software engineer in a 30 mile radius, and certainly not at the same level of comp.
So, if I want to be a well paid software engineer, I can't live in Iowa. If I want to live in Iowa, I can't be a well paid software engineer. If you want to live in the Bay, don't be a teacher. If you want to be a teacher, don't live in the Bay. If enough folks follow that rationale, Bay Area teachers will get paid more.
What if your family lives there?
What if you’re divorced and your children live there?
What if you don’t want to move your children away from their school and friends?
What if jobs in your profession aren’t available elsewhere?
What if you’re receiving medical treatment there that’s not available elsewhere?
What if you’re contractually obligated to be there?
There are a million reasons why someone might not be able to simply move to a new city. Nobody has a right to live in a particular building or neighborhood. But there should be somewhere for them to live within a city no matter what their income is. A city shouldn’t be allowed to ban classes of people.
What if you’re divorced and your children live there?
What if you don’t want to move your children away from their school and friends?
What if jobs in your profession aren’t available elsewhere?
What if you’re receiving medical treatment there that’s not available elsewhere?
What if you’re contractually obligated to be there?
There are a million reasons why someone might not be able to simply move to a new city. Nobody has a right to live in a particular building or neighborhood. But there should be somewhere for them to live within a city no matter what their income is. A city shouldn’t be allowed to ban classes of people.
It’s the government dictating who can live where and do what via egregious over regulation that bans people from the city. If they’d cut the red tape and let housing be built the economy would normalize toward construction cost over time.
Naive, ECON 101 thinking. The free market doesn’t work like this. Read some network theory, son.
In the case of housing affordability crisis in California, government is the problem. San Francisco has the second highest construction costs in the world with an average of $330 per sqft to build[0] These high costs are due to the city's overly burdensome approvals process and delays caused by housing opponents.
If San Franciscans want cheaper housing all they would have to do is allow building the housing already permitted under current zoning laws, and get rid of rent control.
The prices in San Francisco are absolutely insane. My mortgage on a 8,400 sqft commercial building costs as much as renting a closet in SF.
[0] http://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/uploads/San_Francisco_Const...
If San Franciscans want cheaper housing all they would have to do is allow building the housing already permitted under current zoning laws, and get rid of rent control.
The prices in San Francisco are absolutely insane. My mortgage on a 8,400 sqft commercial building costs as much as renting a closet in SF.
[0] http://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/uploads/San_Francisco_Const...
> a laptop sat in place of the bingo drum. Kenneth Biby, the property manager at Natalie Gubb Commons, clicked a button, sending the lottery numbers to a randomizing website.
Surely not?
Surely not?
have seen people in need apply for this at Twitter’s ‘neighbor nest’, filling hundreds and hundreds of forms...
wish I had a solution to help them
SF should be ashamed of the way they treat the poor and middle class.
This is what I’ve observed in ultra liberal (mostly white cities) on the west coast especially: all of the local residents are for helping the poor, until they realize that helping the poor implies they have to do more than discuss social issues with their children at dinner. When it comes to supporting policies, it becomes pure self interest and “preserving the character of my city” ie everyone is white and wealthy.
Yup.
This is what happens when construction is heavily suppressed by zoning restrictions. Let people convert all the vacant lots and one- and two-story buildings into midrises and highrises, especially near transit, and market rents will fall and make lottery-housing unnecessary.
This actually occurred quite successfully in the SOMA neighborhood of San Francisco over the past few years. Several thousand units were built, and lo and behold rent was flat to downwards depending on the part of SOMA.
Many people don't want to live in SOMA though, and the zoning in most of the city doesn't allow for the same kind of rapid, high-density construction.
At the same time, Weiner's plan to designate everything as "transit rich" was effectively crazy and DOA. If you're on the Market Street corridor, it makes sense to have denser housing. Being up to a mile away from "transit" in a city that is only 7 miles wide was a poorly reasoned stretch. He sadly threw the baby out with the bathwater, setting back any rational discussion of upzoning near actual transit.
Many people don't want to live in SOMA though, and the zoning in most of the city doesn't allow for the same kind of rapid, high-density construction.
At the same time, Weiner's plan to designate everything as "transit rich" was effectively crazy and DOA. If you're on the Market Street corridor, it makes sense to have denser housing. Being up to a mile away from "transit" in a city that is only 7 miles wide was a poorly reasoned stretch. He sadly threw the baby out with the bathwater, setting back any rational discussion of upzoning near actual transit.
Where, specifically, are you seeing decreasing rents in SOMA?
Without zoning you will get a landscape like in Moscow suburbs [1][2]. That is what "affordable" (in fact not very affordable) housing looks like.
[1] https://cs7.pikabu.ru/post_img/big/2017/11/15/4/151072205515...
[2] https://varlamov.me/2017/nekrasovka/02.jpg
[1] https://cs7.pikabu.ru/post_img/big/2017/11/15/4/151072205515...
[2] https://varlamov.me/2017/nekrasovka/02.jpg
I'm sure everyone who lives there would rather spend 50% of their gross income on housing.
If vacant lots and low density housing were taxed more, a lot more of it would be yielded to build high density housing.
Allowing land to be treated as a gold bar like store of hoardable value will inevitably leads to a restricted supply.
Allowing land to be treated as a gold bar like store of hoardable value will inevitably leads to a restricted supply.
The problem in SF is not that property developers don’t want to build high density housing. It’s local government and NIMBY-ism actively blocking and restricting it.
If you were handed a pile of gold wouldn't you try to protect its value?
NIMBYism in SF real estate is all about people protecting their $2+ million investments. If the "gold bar" suddenly becomes a major tax liability NIMBYism will dissipate.
Building regs are only a small part of the story.
NIMBYism in SF real estate is all about people protecting their $2+ million investments. If the "gold bar" suddenly becomes a major tax liability NIMBYism will dissipate.
Building regs are only a small part of the story.
But also wealthy single family owners being heavily subsidized by prop 13.
[deleted]
Living in San Francisco, or New York, or London is not a human right.
Note: I'm not trolling, I'm a left leaning person which favours basic income and national health insurance, I just don't understand why living in a mega-expensive city should be subventioned by the state. If you can't afford a Ferrari, you buy a Toyota. Why not move to a less expensive place?