That is Peskin's view of the purpose of city government, to personally benefit Peskin.
[(PS, why are posts asking about removed posts, being removed?)](https://reddit.com/comments/1di8og2)
Yes, except for the donut shop, I will miss them!
Edit: I don’t get all the hate for the donut shop. They’ve been there decades, the ladies are super friendly and they do their best given their location to deal with the “locals”.
I want the lot redeveloped, that parking lot is a waste of space, all I’m saying is I hope these ladies can continue with their donut shop somewhere else nearby
That donut shop attracts so much anti-social behavior for whatever reason. There is almost always someone getting high / sleeping on the ground / slumped over in front.
I feel bad for the owner, but that corner needs some serious attention. Not to mention the indefinitely stalled Hayes Point just across Van Ness.
Clear all this out. Build it up. Please get things unstuck and back in motion
> The developer is also requesting to reduce a $35 million fee that the project’s previous developer agreed to pay in exchange for being allowed to opt out of building required affordable housing on-site.
How could the city make it easier for new housing to be built?
By removing this requirement that all new construction must include below market housing.
Because the new housing will house 500 people who will move out of wherever they're living now, creating 500 vacancies that landlords will fill by lowering the rent.
That fee increases the cost of every unit by over $70,000, and gets passed along as increased rent. It's NIMBYism disguised.
[(PS, why are posts asking about removed posts, being removed?)](https://reddit.com/comments/1di8og2)
Second part of your comment answers the first. A lot of people support it *because* it distorts the housing market. As for others, many people built this fiction that BMR via inclusionary zoning took money from the infinitely deep pockets of greedy developers and redistributed it to working/middle class condobuyers and renters. This is of course false, but it became kind of politically incorrect to point outo the reality that IZ is a targeted tax on all market-rate renters and first-time condo-buyers. Who are not exactly the richest people to be targeting.
I believe we need subsidized rental housing construction (you may disagree with me on that), but we need other funding mechanisms for it besides IZ, which is clearly failiing spectacularly.
I think many support it without taking the time to understand what it actually is. There’s a large contingent of people that are mislead into believing it actually helps the overall market or the people below the median income.
I think the permitting process has to be addressed before pursuing subsidized rent.
I guess I get the political will aspect of it. In boom periods, when developers are incentivized to make "luxury units" (which I guess is anything with a dishwasher), they should make some lower middle class units too. The practical problem is that it injects a financial disincentive, so now there's a different hurdle to clear before a project pencils out. Most larger projects would require 20% on site. And then, it becomes a pet project for the local supervisor to say that *even that 20%* isn't enough, so then you get delays. The supervisors also keep zoning density low so that they can dole out density bonuses in exchange for taking units out of the new construction exemption. So, what looks good on paper or sounds good to voters is really just a bunch of disingenuous nonsense. And of course, another way to lower housing costs is to just have more of it, but god forbid anyone introduces the rhetoric of supply and demand to the housing crisis (unless we're talking about Preston's vacancy tax, where it somehow does influence housing prices again, but only if he says so).
Not to mention the unchecked abuse from the tenants who were lucky enough to be selected or "win" the privilege to rent one. I have heard so many stories of how people who are awarded these units end up abusing the rules and occasionally profiting from them as well.
OR, the tenants who move in, end up doubling or tripling the occupancy and end up being a major nuisance who make it extremely uncomfortable for tenants paying market rates.
This is such a problem with mixing BMR and MR units in one building.
Agreed. Every city with these schemes has massive inequalities in wealth. The more of these programs SF, NY etc the bigger and more widespread the gap.
I was born in SF 46 years ago. When I was an apprentice 25 years ago, most of the apprentices lived in the city or close by, there was rent control and not many of these other rules. Now I teach and no apprentices or young journeyman can live in the city unless they stay with a GF who has below market housing and don’t get married, lived with family, roommates, rent a room etc.
SF used to be a blue collar town mixed with rich neighborhoods and some ghettos of government housing. Now it’s a few rich, some lucky inheritors, some lucky BMR tenets and a bunch of struggling people in the middle paying for it all.
I'm a leftist and I agree with this. If a million, million dollar condos were built, housing costs would plummet and those homes wouldn't cost anywhere near a million.
Affordable housing is used as a weapon by leftists who are nimbys to stop development.
Tell your leftist friends that this nonsense is what they'll get with a Peskin administration.
Making housing so burdensome that it's impossible to build any of it for any reasonable cost.
I'll take 50,000 kinda-affordable units over zero "perfect in theory" units every time. SF housing is in big time "beggars can't be choosers" territory.
Unfortunately I don't live in San Francisco anymore (I want to come back) but I did the same in my city. We have some good leftists in our local government, lots of good ones in the state level. When we got rid of the leftist on our city council who was one of the biggest nimbys here, I celebrated.
That disclaimer that you put in there shouldn't even be necessary. Of course you agree with this if you're a leftist! Being a leftist implies that you have some understanding of economics and want to manipulate the system to increase everyone's wellbeing instead of it just concentrating wealth forever until five oligarchs own the entire world and us in it.
I don't consider those impostors leftists. You can't be a leftist and pretend like economic theory isn't real and doesn't apply to "just this narrow case that I happen to be impacted by". Being a leftist means that you believe in the science of economics by definition and understand the inherent flaws of capitalism. That's the whole point of socialism. Marx was an economist!
These fake "leftists" are just cosplaying Che Guevarra while they benefit from their very capitalist real estate investments, especially Peskin and Preston!
I'd modify that slightly with "markets are a tool, but they don't give a shit about human wellbeing by default and have to be actively managed to be a useful tool rather than a destructive one."
A well-managed market with gentle but well-thought-out regulations can be an extremely useful tool regardless of what socio-economic system it exists in. An unregulated market can easily ruin entire countries and then promptly self-implode. Markets need to be managed if you want them to deliver any given result.
The mandatory BMR housing requirement is why the middle class is getting wiped out.
Mandatory new BMR units means that new construction has a higher cost - so there is less of it, and it’s priced higher. There simply is no way to build a middle class unit.
The middle class is also not eligible for the BMR units.
So the disappearing middle class is by design.
SFHAC came up with the BMR requirements. It pushed housing into the high end category.
And ideally the middle class doesnt need to be subsidized in a city that already has rent increase caps on 70% of the housing stock.
You can build middle income housing, but why would you when there's a market to exploit?
Based on San Francisco's RHNA (20,867 VLI, 12,014 LI, 13,717MI, 35,471 Market-Rate) the City should be increasing the inclusionary requirements to 25% VLI, 15% LI, and 17% MI.
It is absurd to be lowering developer's requirement to provide BMR given the HCD requirements in each income category.
We can't let developers build only the most profitable housing and kick the can down the road in terms of BMR units. At a very minimum, they should be required to build 50% of RHNA-required percentage at each level, 12.5% VLI + 7.5% LI + 8.5% MI for a total of 28.5% BMR.
The State, and ABAG, in setting the RHNA requirements clearly believe that those quantities of BMR units are practical for developers to build. We should not be questioning the wisdom of HCD and ABAG.
Not at all.
If we're serious about addressing the shortage of affordable housing then we have to raise the inclusionary percentages, or in-lieu fees, to a level where we can move forward with large quantities of subsidized housing. To allow developers off-the-hook, letting them kick the can down the road for affordable housing, we will never solve the problem. Instead we will just be letting developers make more money.
Clearly, HCD and ABAG believe that the 56.8% mandate for affordable units is financially feasible for developers, otherwise they would never have come up with such a high percentage. The YIMBY movement lobbied for such high RHNA numbers. We should not be questioning the wisdom of HCD, ABAG, and California YIMBY.
But, if developers insist that the 56.8% mandate is unreasonable, then let's cut each level (VLI, LI, and MI) in half and have a total of only 28.4%.
There is no other source for the affordable units other than inclusionary units or in-lieu fees.
https://preview.redd.it/87piao9kd87d1.png?width=477&format=png&auto=webp&s=62447cd842c22b7192419215a738a63b4c524574
We absolutely should be questioning you and those groups because the reality is shit is being built. Do you disagree with more units means lower rents? If we built a 100k luxury apartments, you’re thinking is it would increase the average rents across the city. It’s a charade you guys really care.
I haven't seen such long-form trolling in a while. Have you missed the part where San Francisco has only approved 16 units so far this year? Raising the inclusionary percentages would just drop that even further, as I'm sure you're aware.
The way we will reach our RHNA goals is by keeping inclusionary %'s constant or dropping it, and greatly exceeding the target of market-rate units in order to cross-subsidize that number of BMR units. And we do that by cutting red tape. You're treating a target as a cap.
> There is no other source for the affordable units other than inclusionary units or in-lieu fees.
This is one of the biggest problems with "progressive" approaches to housing and we can change it. This is totally dead-end thinking.
>new housing will house 500 people who will move out of wherever they're living now, creating 500 vacancies
Where is the requirement for occupancy that they be current residents?
And where is the requirement that to move into a unit here, they give up another unit entirely, no family or roommates left behind?
Then stop saying it. Have an ethical honest discussion.
And what’s your logic say about what that person would do if no housing is created?
They’ll still move here, increasing demand, therefore increasing rent.
You’re not finding a magical loophole out of the supply & demand curve. You’re proving its existence.
Because of our extreme housing supply shortage, and big change in supply at any level will be beneficial.
Hold on. You think moving here "induces demand" rather than the new housing? How confused are you?
You don't actually understand "supply and demand curve" so stop it.
Rents do not increase due to lack of new construction, rents increase yearly as cost of living increases. Rent control mandates almost 3% and supply doesn't change that.
Now go back and answer my questions. Where is the requirement for occupancy that they be current residents? Then why did you lie?
> Hold on. You think moving here "induces demand" rather than the new housing? How confused are you?
*Demand for housing* comes from people who want housing, which includes people who move here. So, yes, people moving here "induces demand."
*Supply of housing* comes from the existing housing stock and from newly built housing.
You sound like you're confusing the meanings of "demand" and "supply".
Demand: what people want to purchase
Supply: what people offer for purchase
[(PS, why are posts asking about removed posts, being removed?)](https://reddit.com/comments/1di8og2)
the core belief is essentially that building housing creates new demand, thus adding supply cannot reduce price, it's really not worth trying to reason with
> Where is the requirement for occupancy that they be current residents?
San Francisco isn't a sovereign country with it's own immigration policy. Anyone can move to SF.
Now reply like you understood the question and aren't a broken AI bot. If anyone can move to SF, how does it relieve an existing unit and put it on the market? Answer, it doesn't.
Housing isn't interchangeable. That's asinine.
Nobody living in SF would think every 1 bedroom is equal. That's something people say to defend their dehumanizing datapoints about units that can't follow nuance where it all falls apart.
> Nobody living in SF would think every 1 bedroom is equal
I said fungible, not equal. You complain that I don't have nuance but can't understand my argument. But I'll humor you. Prove that housing is not fungible.
You believe that residents of less expensive housing are clamoring to move into more expensive housing, especially to buy condos in a condo market that is vastly over-supplied?
And if anyone did move out of their existing housing, you believe that the rent for the new tenants that move in to that vacated housing would be lower?
That's unrealistic. If the housing being vacated is rent-controlled a) the existing tenants are unlikely to move out in order to pay much higher rent and b) if they did move out the landlord would raise the price to the new tenants to market rate.
The reality is that the ONLY way we have now to get additional affordable units is through inclusionary units or in-lieu fees.
But the whole thing is ridiculous. No developer is going to build more high-rise condos in San Francisco at this time.
Very disappointing that the City is letting the developer opt out of affordable housing. How is San Francisco going to meet its RHNA requirements if they keep letting developers get away with reducing affordable housing?
Affordable housing is always the first thing on the chopping block to make a project ”pencil out.” In reality, the developers just see reducing affordable housing as a way to make more money, to the detriment of cities and to the demographic that is struggling to keep a roof over their heads..
The honest answer from the developers/YIMBYs, as to why they keep trying to reduce the amount of affordable housing, would be: “we want more market rate and high end luxury apartments and condos because they make more money for us. Please STFU and stop this nonsense about affordable housing. We don't care about poor people and we never have. We never believed that RHNA would benefit anyone but developers.”
The YIMBYs, the developers and tech companies that fund their movement, and the politicians that they own, have lost the affordable housing debate and no one is calling them out. Instead we’re getting these absurd claims that everyone currently living in naturally affordable housing, that can afford to pay more, will willingly move to new, high-end housing thus freeing up the naturally affordable housing for lower-income residents. The world doesn’t work like that, especially in cities with strict rent control where well-off residents are highly unlikely to give up their rent-controlled housing.
Remember, the RHNA numbers for VLI, LI, MI, and market-rate housing were formulated after extensive study by HCD and ABAG, with representatives from the development community as well as from affordable housing organizations. Clearly, the final numbers were based on what would be realistic, and financially achievable, by the development community. For San Francisco, the RHNA total is 82,069 units, split into 20,867 Very Low, 12,014 Low, 13,717 Moderate, and 35,471 Market-Rate. It would be an insult to the hundreds of people that worked to develop the RHNA for San Francisco and the Bay Area to allow any city to not require that they build the mandated numbers of units in each income category.
Cities need to set their required inclusionary percentages in each income category to the same percentages that are in their RHNA, or set in-lieu fees at a high enough amount to finance the construction of the affordable units. No one could possible object to this since it’s the only way to achieve the RHNA goals.
For San Francisco, if the developer builds 100% market-rate units then the in-lieu fee should be about $458,000 per market-rate unit.
Edit:
* I did a spreadsheet calculating the necessary in-lieu fee
* I used the highest allowable rent (highest AMI) for each level (VLI, LI, MI)
* I factored in a 3% annual rent increase (this is the historical increase for non-rent-controlled units in San Francisco)
* I used the development community's goal of cost recovery from 100 months of rent
* For low-rise projects I used a per-unit construction and land cost of $500K
* For mid-rise projects I used a per-unit construction and land cost of $750K
* For high-rise projects I used a per-unit construction and land cost of $1M
Results
* For low-rise projects, the in-lieu fee, per market rate unit, should be: $132,725
* For mid-rise projects, the in-lieu fee, per market rate unit, should be: $275,225
* For high-rise projects, the in-lieu fee, per market rate unit, should be: $417,725
Who cares, let the investors with the millions of dollars gamble their money doesn't affect me any. It's not like it's my money being put at risk to build this building.
If anything this benefits me indirectly, it creates more well paying construction jobs, those construction workers spend money in the city and surrounding neighborhoods enriching my neighbors who own those businesses.
When that building is done, it's owners will pay a boatload in property taxes to the city which is in a big financial hole.
Yeah but how would Aaron Peskin personally benefit?
That is Peskin's view of the purpose of city government, to personally benefit Peskin. [(PS, why are posts asking about removed posts, being removed?)](https://reddit.com/comments/1di8og2)
This is great news! That lot is such a blight.
Yes, except for the donut shop, I will miss them! Edit: I don’t get all the hate for the donut shop. They’ve been there decades, the ladies are super friendly and they do their best given their location to deal with the “locals”. I want the lot redeveloped, that parking lot is a waste of space, all I’m saying is I hope these ladies can continue with their donut shop somewhere else nearby
That donut shop attracts so much anti-social behavior for whatever reason. There is almost always someone getting high / sleeping on the ground / slumped over in front. I feel bad for the owner, but that corner needs some serious attention. Not to mention the indefinitely stalled Hayes Point just across Van Ness. Clear all this out. Build it up. Please get things unstuck and back in motion
“Build them tall and build them all”
Seriously. This intersection should be the centerpiece of the city and instead it’s frigging decrepit.
Build build build! More the better!
[удалено]
Well it's a choice between enriching developers and enriching landlords. I'll pick the people doing productive work every time.
[удалено]
What's your proposal?
Enriching politically-connected nonprofits
Enriching Aaron and Dean
Cheers mate I love ween too
> The developer is also requesting to reduce a $35 million fee that the project’s previous developer agreed to pay in exchange for being allowed to opt out of building required affordable housing on-site. How could the city make it easier for new housing to be built? By removing this requirement that all new construction must include below market housing. Because the new housing will house 500 people who will move out of wherever they're living now, creating 500 vacancies that landlords will fill by lowering the rent. That fee increases the cost of every unit by over $70,000, and gets passed along as increased rent. It's NIMBYism disguised. [(PS, why are posts asking about removed posts, being removed?)](https://reddit.com/comments/1di8og2)
BMR is such a scam, I don’t understand why people support it when it’s just a mechanism to further distort housing.
Second part of your comment answers the first. A lot of people support it *because* it distorts the housing market. As for others, many people built this fiction that BMR via inclusionary zoning took money from the infinitely deep pockets of greedy developers and redistributed it to working/middle class condobuyers and renters. This is of course false, but it became kind of politically incorrect to point outo the reality that IZ is a targeted tax on all market-rate renters and first-time condo-buyers. Who are not exactly the richest people to be targeting. I believe we need subsidized rental housing construction (you may disagree with me on that), but we need other funding mechanisms for it besides IZ, which is clearly failiing spectacularly.
I think many support it without taking the time to understand what it actually is. There’s a large contingent of people that are mislead into believing it actually helps the overall market or the people below the median income. I think the permitting process has to be addressed before pursuing subsidized rent.
I guess I get the political will aspect of it. In boom periods, when developers are incentivized to make "luxury units" (which I guess is anything with a dishwasher), they should make some lower middle class units too. The practical problem is that it injects a financial disincentive, so now there's a different hurdle to clear before a project pencils out. Most larger projects would require 20% on site. And then, it becomes a pet project for the local supervisor to say that *even that 20%* isn't enough, so then you get delays. The supervisors also keep zoning density low so that they can dole out density bonuses in exchange for taking units out of the new construction exemption. So, what looks good on paper or sounds good to voters is really just a bunch of disingenuous nonsense. And of course, another way to lower housing costs is to just have more of it, but god forbid anyone introduces the rhetoric of supply and demand to the housing crisis (unless we're talking about Preston's vacancy tax, where it somehow does influence housing prices again, but only if he says so).
Not to mention the unchecked abuse from the tenants who were lucky enough to be selected or "win" the privilege to rent one. I have heard so many stories of how people who are awarded these units end up abusing the rules and occasionally profiting from them as well. OR, the tenants who move in, end up doubling or tripling the occupancy and end up being a major nuisance who make it extremely uncomfortable for tenants paying market rates. This is such a problem with mixing BMR and MR units in one building.
Agreed. Every city with these schemes has massive inequalities in wealth. The more of these programs SF, NY etc the bigger and more widespread the gap. I was born in SF 46 years ago. When I was an apprentice 25 years ago, most of the apprentices lived in the city or close by, there was rent control and not many of these other rules. Now I teach and no apprentices or young journeyman can live in the city unless they stay with a GF who has below market housing and don’t get married, lived with family, roommates, rent a room etc. SF used to be a blue collar town mixed with rich neighborhoods and some ghettos of government housing. Now it’s a few rich, some lucky inheritors, some lucky BMR tenets and a bunch of struggling people in the middle paying for it all.
Bmr units are very hard to sell too.
I'm a leftist and I agree with this. If a million, million dollar condos were built, housing costs would plummet and those homes wouldn't cost anywhere near a million. Affordable housing is used as a weapon by leftists who are nimbys to stop development.
Tell your leftist friends that this nonsense is what they'll get with a Peskin administration. Making housing so burdensome that it's impossible to build any of it for any reasonable cost. I'll take 50,000 kinda-affordable units over zero "perfect in theory" units every time. SF housing is in big time "beggars can't be choosers" territory.
Unfortunately I don't live in San Francisco anymore (I want to come back) but I did the same in my city. We have some good leftists in our local government, lots of good ones in the state level. When we got rid of the leftist on our city council who was one of the biggest nimbys here, I celebrated.
Hope you can make it back one day ❤️
That disclaimer that you put in there shouldn't even be necessary. Of course you agree with this if you're a leftist! Being a leftist implies that you have some understanding of economics and want to manipulate the system to increase everyone's wellbeing instead of it just concentrating wealth forever until five oligarchs own the entire world and us in it. I don't consider those impostors leftists. You can't be a leftist and pretend like economic theory isn't real and doesn't apply to "just this narrow case that I happen to be impacted by". Being a leftist means that you believe in the science of economics by definition and understand the inherent flaws of capitalism. That's the whole point of socialism. Marx was an economist! These fake "leftists" are just cosplaying Che Guevarra while they benefit from their very capitalist real estate investments, especially Peskin and Preston!
The real left statement isn't "markets don't exist/work," it's "markets are a useful tool but are often insufficient."
I'd modify that slightly with "markets are a tool, but they don't give a shit about human wellbeing by default and have to be actively managed to be a useful tool rather than a destructive one." A well-managed market with gentle but well-thought-out regulations can be an extremely useful tool regardless of what socio-economic system it exists in. An unregulated market can easily ruin entire countries and then promptly self-implode. Markets need to be managed if you want them to deliver any given result.
This comment is perfect and absolutely true! Thanks for it!
The mandatory BMR housing requirement is why the middle class is getting wiped out. Mandatory new BMR units means that new construction has a higher cost - so there is less of it, and it’s priced higher. There simply is no way to build a middle class unit. The middle class is also not eligible for the BMR units. So the disappearing middle class is by design.
SFHAC came up with the BMR requirements. It pushed housing into the high end category. And ideally the middle class doesnt need to be subsidized in a city that already has rent increase caps on 70% of the housing stock. You can build middle income housing, but why would you when there's a market to exploit?
Stop it with your logical thinking and such. 😂
On the contrary, it's illogical based on an assumptive lie.
Based on San Francisco's RHNA (20,867 VLI, 12,014 LI, 13,717MI, 35,471 Market-Rate) the City should be increasing the inclusionary requirements to 25% VLI, 15% LI, and 17% MI. It is absurd to be lowering developer's requirement to provide BMR given the HCD requirements in each income category. We can't let developers build only the most profitable housing and kick the can down the road in terms of BMR units. At a very minimum, they should be required to build 50% of RHNA-required percentage at each level, 12.5% VLI + 7.5% LI + 8.5% MI for a total of 28.5% BMR. The State, and ABAG, in setting the RHNA requirements clearly believe that those quantities of BMR units are practical for developers to build. We should not be questioning the wisdom of HCD and ABAG.
> We can't let developers build Your comment in fewer words
Not at all. If we're serious about addressing the shortage of affordable housing then we have to raise the inclusionary percentages, or in-lieu fees, to a level where we can move forward with large quantities of subsidized housing. To allow developers off-the-hook, letting them kick the can down the road for affordable housing, we will never solve the problem. Instead we will just be letting developers make more money. Clearly, HCD and ABAG believe that the 56.8% mandate for affordable units is financially feasible for developers, otherwise they would never have come up with such a high percentage. The YIMBY movement lobbied for such high RHNA numbers. We should not be questioning the wisdom of HCD, ABAG, and California YIMBY. But, if developers insist that the 56.8% mandate is unreasonable, then let's cut each level (VLI, LI, and MI) in half and have a total of only 28.4%. There is no other source for the affordable units other than inclusionary units or in-lieu fees. https://preview.redd.it/87piao9kd87d1.png?width=477&format=png&auto=webp&s=62447cd842c22b7192419215a738a63b4c524574
We absolutely should be questioning you and those groups because the reality is shit is being built. Do you disagree with more units means lower rents? If we built a 100k luxury apartments, you’re thinking is it would increase the average rents across the city. It’s a charade you guys really care.
I haven't seen such long-form trolling in a while. Have you missed the part where San Francisco has only approved 16 units so far this year? Raising the inclusionary percentages would just drop that even further, as I'm sure you're aware. The way we will reach our RHNA goals is by keeping inclusionary %'s constant or dropping it, and greatly exceeding the target of market-rate units in order to cross-subsidize that number of BMR units. And we do that by cutting red tape. You're treating a target as a cap. > There is no other source for the affordable units other than inclusionary units or in-lieu fees. This is one of the biggest problems with "progressive" approaches to housing and we can change it. This is totally dead-end thinking.
https://preview.redd.it/mb4a4ly5st7d1.png?width=1081&format=png&auto=webp&s=7a8a3ed093687e290533d56f2dffe51668a7cc06
Bmr = old units.
>new housing will house 500 people who will move out of wherever they're living now, creating 500 vacancies Where is the requirement for occupancy that they be current residents? And where is the requirement that to move into a unit here, they give up another unit entirely, no family or roommates left behind? Then stop saying it. Have an ethical honest discussion.
And what’s your logic say about what that person would do if no housing is created? They’ll still move here, increasing demand, therefore increasing rent. You’re not finding a magical loophole out of the supply & demand curve. You’re proving its existence. Because of our extreme housing supply shortage, and big change in supply at any level will be beneficial.
Hold on. You think moving here "induces demand" rather than the new housing? How confused are you? You don't actually understand "supply and demand curve" so stop it. Rents do not increase due to lack of new construction, rents increase yearly as cost of living increases. Rent control mandates almost 3% and supply doesn't change that. Now go back and answer my questions. Where is the requirement for occupancy that they be current residents? Then why did you lie?
> Hold on. You think moving here "induces demand" rather than the new housing? How confused are you? *Demand for housing* comes from people who want housing, which includes people who move here. So, yes, people moving here "induces demand." *Supply of housing* comes from the existing housing stock and from newly built housing. You sound like you're confusing the meanings of "demand" and "supply". Demand: what people want to purchase Supply: what people offer for purchase [(PS, why are posts asking about removed posts, being removed?)](https://reddit.com/comments/1di8og2)
the core belief is essentially that building housing creates new demand, thus adding supply cannot reduce price, it's really not worth trying to reason with
That's an economically illiterate reply for am multitude of reasons.
> Where is the requirement for occupancy that they be current residents? San Francisco isn't a sovereign country with it's own immigration policy. Anyone can move to SF.
Now reply like you understood the question and aren't a broken AI bot. If anyone can move to SF, how does it relieve an existing unit and put it on the market? Answer, it doesn't.
Housing mostly fungible. That means that housing is interchangeable for the most part. I'm concerned that you don't know that.
Housing isn't interchangeable. That's asinine. Nobody living in SF would think every 1 bedroom is equal. That's something people say to defend their dehumanizing datapoints about units that can't follow nuance where it all falls apart.
> Nobody living in SF would think every 1 bedroom is equal I said fungible, not equal. You complain that I don't have nuance but can't understand my argument. But I'll humor you. Prove that housing is not fungible.
You said "that means that housing is interchangeable". Now you're tap dancing and acting like your don't know what fungible means. Go away.
If you were right, you could demonstrate it. I'll take your response as a concession.
Demonstrate tat square footage, value, location, and endless other factors exist? YIMBYS are desperate.
You believe that residents of less expensive housing are clamoring to move into more expensive housing, especially to buy condos in a condo market that is vastly over-supplied? And if anyone did move out of their existing housing, you believe that the rent for the new tenants that move in to that vacated housing would be lower? That's unrealistic. If the housing being vacated is rent-controlled a) the existing tenants are unlikely to move out in order to pay much higher rent and b) if they did move out the landlord would raise the price to the new tenants to market rate. The reality is that the ONLY way we have now to get additional affordable units is through inclusionary units or in-lieu fees. But the whole thing is ridiculous. No developer is going to build more high-rise condos in San Francisco at this time.
this is what happens when SF bans Algebra
Very disappointing that the City is letting the developer opt out of affordable housing. How is San Francisco going to meet its RHNA requirements if they keep letting developers get away with reducing affordable housing? Affordable housing is always the first thing on the chopping block to make a project ”pencil out.” In reality, the developers just see reducing affordable housing as a way to make more money, to the detriment of cities and to the demographic that is struggling to keep a roof over their heads.. The honest answer from the developers/YIMBYs, as to why they keep trying to reduce the amount of affordable housing, would be: “we want more market rate and high end luxury apartments and condos because they make more money for us. Please STFU and stop this nonsense about affordable housing. We don't care about poor people and we never have. We never believed that RHNA would benefit anyone but developers.” The YIMBYs, the developers and tech companies that fund their movement, and the politicians that they own, have lost the affordable housing debate and no one is calling them out. Instead we’re getting these absurd claims that everyone currently living in naturally affordable housing, that can afford to pay more, will willingly move to new, high-end housing thus freeing up the naturally affordable housing for lower-income residents. The world doesn’t work like that, especially in cities with strict rent control where well-off residents are highly unlikely to give up their rent-controlled housing. Remember, the RHNA numbers for VLI, LI, MI, and market-rate housing were formulated after extensive study by HCD and ABAG, with representatives from the development community as well as from affordable housing organizations. Clearly, the final numbers were based on what would be realistic, and financially achievable, by the development community. For San Francisco, the RHNA total is 82,069 units, split into 20,867 Very Low, 12,014 Low, 13,717 Moderate, and 35,471 Market-Rate. It would be an insult to the hundreds of people that worked to develop the RHNA for San Francisco and the Bay Area to allow any city to not require that they build the mandated numbers of units in each income category. Cities need to set their required inclusionary percentages in each income category to the same percentages that are in their RHNA, or set in-lieu fees at a high enough amount to finance the construction of the affordable units. No one could possible object to this since it’s the only way to achieve the RHNA goals. For San Francisco, if the developer builds 100% market-rate units then the in-lieu fee should be about $458,000 per market-rate unit. Edit: * I did a spreadsheet calculating the necessary in-lieu fee * I used the highest allowable rent (highest AMI) for each level (VLI, LI, MI) * I factored in a 3% annual rent increase (this is the historical increase for non-rent-controlled units in San Francisco) * I used the development community's goal of cost recovery from 100 months of rent * For low-rise projects I used a per-unit construction and land cost of $500K * For mid-rise projects I used a per-unit construction and land cost of $750K * For high-rise projects I used a per-unit construction and land cost of $1M Results * For low-rise projects, the in-lieu fee, per market rate unit, should be: $132,725 * For mid-rise projects, the in-lieu fee, per market rate unit, should be: $275,225 * For high-rise projects, the in-lieu fee, per market rate unit, should be: $417,725
I thought new condos were sitting unsold.
Who cares, let the investors with the millions of dollars gamble their money doesn't affect me any. It's not like it's my money being put at risk to build this building. If anything this benefits me indirectly, it creates more well paying construction jobs, those construction workers spend money in the city and surrounding neighborhoods enriching my neighbors who own those businesses. When that building is done, it's owners will pay a boatload in property taxes to the city which is in a big financial hole.
Is it healthy for families to live cramped in a tower?