For sure the poor and the homeless are not identical groups, but there is definitely a big overlap. I agree with Torrie to the extent that most folks who are homeless do not directly choose to live in that condition (i.e. although there is a small minority who choose to live outdoors despite having the means to do otherwise, most people on the streets would pay for indoor housing if they could afford it). Many of the poor (homeless and otherwise) are employed in low-wage jobs, but many of them are unemployed. That one is more likely to be poor if one lacks an income (aside from any pittance provided by government welfare) is just common sense. Government policies have jacked the price of housing far beyond what a government welfare check alone can usually cover.
I agree that if the housing market was allowed to function without interference – that is to say, without any legal restrictions on developing one's property or legal demands about what type of housing must be built – it would quickly provide so much affordable housing that we would see drastic reductions in rents.
I think we are missing the point here. We would not need "affordable apartments or bmr units" if we only flood the rental market with 200K units of market rate apartments which would lower rents by 50%. If we build 200K condos of all sized mixed together it would reduce the real estate prices for those condos by 50% not in 10 years but by 2 years.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Affordable to someone who has zero income? 200K units built where, if we are talking about The City?
Marcy
Marcy,
I don't know specifically what Donald Dewsnup had in mind – I've forwarded your reply to him in case he wishes to respond. However like most SFBARFers, while moderate and relatively pro-property-rights by SF standards, his libertarian leanings are not fully developed enough to extend to opposing government housing subsidies.
My own position of course would not be to impose any overall plan to build a particular number of units, but simply let people build what they want on their own property. Given the demand incentives, I expect lots of landowners would do so if legal restrictions were removed, and I'm sure that would have a dramatic lowering impact on housing prices, but I have no idea exactly how many units would be produced or how much prices would drop in what precise timeframe.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Thanks for the clarification Starchild. Key sentence is no "overall plan to build any particular number of units." Given property owners' track record in this town, I would not hope for much building without heavy incentives or coercion. "Density" is a four letter word in the neighborhoods.
Marcy
Marcy,
I don't know specifically what Donald Dewsnup had in mind – I've forwarded your reply to him in case he wishes to respond. However like most SFBARFers, while moderate and relatively pro-property-rights by SF standards, his libertarian leanings are not fully developed enough to extend to opposing government housing subsidies.
My own position of course would not be to impose any overall plan to build a particular number of units, but simply let people build what they want on their own property. Given the demand incentives, I expect lots of landowners would do so if legal restrictions were removed, and I'm sure that would have a dramatic lowering impact on housing prices, but I have no idea exactly how many units would be produced or how much prices would drop in what precise timeframe.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Given the housing shortage (and thus the opportunity to make money by supplying that commodity), the "heavy incentives" are already there. All that is necessary is for government to get out of the way and allow property owners to respond to them.
"Chain store" is also a four-letter word for many people, as are "brothel", "landlord", "wealth", "sweetened beverage", "graffiti", "automobile", and many others. We may disagree about whether a particular prejudice is reasonable, but hopefully we can agree that people should not be allowed to use government to coercively force their prejudices on others.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Totally and completely agreed that using the power of government to force our own preferences and prejudices on others is not ethical. What I am referring to is that currently neighborhoods are mostly populated by property owners that do not wish to sell their property or to build them up. Without space in those neighborhoods, I doubt that there will be room for 200K new units without coercion or tax payer funded unreasonably expensive incentives from government.
My perception is based on neighborhood meetings I have been attending both here in my own neighborhood as well as in the avenues. From what I hear, folks seem to be there to stay, sans any changes.
Marcy
There have been, and continue to be, attempts to build new housing, and put in chain stores, brothels, cannabis dispensaries, etc., out in the low-density neighborhoods, to the limits of what the current political climate allows. Often these attempts are beaten back by NIMBY neighbors using the unjust power that anti-property-rights regulations and the statist system have given them to veto their neighbors' decisions about how to use their property. If that power were gone, I am certain we would see a lot more development and land-use changes.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Perhaps. But these are two separate subjects. One is your original point regarding 200k units, the other is installing of businesses which are viewed as undesirable by the neighborhoods. I was addressing the first one. The second subject is a long story too, though.
Marcy
There have been, and continue to be, attempts to build new housing, and put in chain stores, brothels, cannabis dispensaries, etc., out in the low-density neighborhoods, to the limits of what the current political climate allows. Often these attempts are beaten back by NIMBY neighbors using the unjust power that anti-property-rights regulations and the statist system have given them to veto their neighbors' decisions about how to use their property. If that power were gone, I am certain we would see a lot more development and land-use changes.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
It was Donald who made the original point about 200k units. You pointed out that this would be unpopular among current residents of western SF (middle class, low-density) neighborhoods, and I don't doubt this is true (at least in the present climate – more on that below). I pointed out that lots of things besides housing are unpopular in these neighborhoods (firearms are another unpopular thing that comes to mind!), and you agreed that such prejudices should not have the force of law behind them.
In the big picture though, it seems to me that development is development, and the ability to put in a new business is closely linked to the ability to put in a new home. Clearly there is a political majority who don't want their neighbors adding these things in most cases. I say a "political majority" in reference to the fact that the type of people who are most actively engaged in the political process are on average older, more likely to own property, more likely to be long-time residents, more likely to buy into the current political system, all of which makes them more likely to be NIMBYs. (There may well be an actual majority among all residents too, although proving this one way or the other would be hard without good polling.)
In any case though, there is clearly also a minority that would like to build – as witness the ongoing and often beaten-back attempts previously mentioned. I also suspect that while lots of residents don't want their neighbors to put in "undesirable" land uses such as new housing or unpopular businesses, they wouldn't be adverse to doing so themselves, if they thought they had lucrative prospects! Currently of course, development is very expensive, difficult, time-consuming, and uncertain, consequently landowners receive relatively few development offers, and probably few consider it as something to try to do themselves. If the controls were lifted and at-will development were easy however, I think a lot of previously NIMBY landowners would change their tunes. People are frequently hypocrites!
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))