<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
That $5,000/month 2-BR apartment translates to $60K/year for rent,
which means that the owner isn't even going to look at anyone with
an income below $180K, or a married couple with joint income of
$180K and perfect credit ratings. <br>
<br>
Re. "many levels of rich": the average millionaire is closer to
his/her gardener in terms of net worth, than to the plutocrats (but
most millionaires have no clue about this). In any case, there are
enough people in the 1% to account for 95% of the spending in the
economy (keyword search "plutonomy" and look for the report that was
leaked from one of the major banks on that topic), so the bottom 99%
is almost irrelevant ("supply and demand" for human lives, again).<br>
<br>
Re. "at whatever level a developer wants to provide more housing,
I'll say YES DO IT..." Be careful what you wish for...<br>
<br>
Re. "tall buildings..." (preceding email): When the inevitable 7.0
on either the Hayward or San Andreas occurs, even if the building
remains standing (this can't be taken for granted either, given the
problems with the imported steel in the Bay Bridge) power &
water will be out for weeks, possibly months in some areas.
Elevators and air conditioning won't be working in those buildings.
So now you have highrises full of people, some of whom are elderly,
disabled, or have small kids, with no food or water, and no
sanitation. Asking neighbors to carry food up the stairs might
work, but lugging water up ten or twenty flights is a non-starter (a
2-day supply for one person for drinking and cooking, is about 25
lbs.). <br>
<br>
Even earthquake-denialism doesn't help us, because adding high-rises
adds demand for water, sewer, and parking, all the time. Assuming
that most high-rise residents won't have cars doesn't help much,
because some will, and those will still add up to more cars than
there is space to park them. Water and sewer are the biggies, and
any move toward highrise development will require digging up streets
and installing new water & sewer mains, which translate to
higher costs either in rent or in taxes.<br>
<br>
Albert Einstein was a pacifist, and Edward Teller was a hawk. Both
agreed that the exponential function is the most dangerous math on
Earth. <br>
<br>
-G.<br>
<br>
<br>
=====<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 13-06-10-Mon 3:41 PM, Sonja Trauss
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAEMAOD6tSeGeAU08cRaEPbZXu2gPfAeL473QaG_NoqELUrndNg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Yeah Jehan that's how I understand it. <br>
<br>
</div>
Eddie's scenario though is that rich_guy CAN'T move
into the nice new apt, because before he gets there,
some rich_guy_2 moves into the apt from Mountain
View, and <i>rich_guy_2 would not have moved into
SF if the new apartments hadn't been built</i>. <br>
<br>
</div>
This is a scenario, so we should explore its
antecedents and consequences. <br>
<br>
</div>
My first response is - so what if this happens. In this
scenario rents go neither up or down. I don't think it's
realistic to expect that all new building will be taken
up like this, but, since I don't know the future, it's
worth imagining this extreme outcome and asking, is it
bad? if it is bad, is it so bad that we shouldn't take
the risk of it happening? I don't see it as bad. Like I
said before, it will have no net affect on rent, so we
lose nothing, and there might be ancillary benefits: my
$13 jam business might improve, or my $75/ hour personal
yoga coach business. Maybe I'm a social worker, and this
means there will be more money in the city budget for my
organization. whatever. <br>
<br>
</div>
Next, more interestingly, let's consider what could
possibly cause rich_guy_2's behavior. Usually people move
to be closer to work, to be closer to some fun city
center, to be closer to family, they make the decision and
then they look for housing. They do not hear of new
housing being built and say, on that fact alone, 'I will
now move!' <br>
<br>
</div>
If someone hears of new housing being built, and he then
says, 'I will now move,' it is because he is (1) very strict
about only living in brand new housing (not likely) or (2)
RESPONDING TO AN INCREASE IN SUPPLY AT HIS PRICE POINT. <br>
<br>
</div>
Have you ever heard someone say "there are no available
apartments in SF"? Of course he doesn't mean there are no
available apartments, of course there are apartments: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/apa/">http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/apa/</a>
there's a $5000 2 bedroom at the top of the list. What he
means is "there are no available apartments in SF at my price
point." So, this person, who wants to spend say, $3000 for a
nice 2 bedroom lives somewhere else, and waits for the supply
of $3000 2 bedroom apartments to increase. This is rich_guy_2.
This person is currently priced out of San Francisco. Hard to
believe, but true, there are many levels of rich. You can be
house shopping and be priced out at almost any price point.
I'm sympathetic to people that are priced out. I don't want to
see anyone priced out. I'm not going to discriminate based on
income high or low. No one should be priced out. If you can
pay $300/mo or $3000 you should be able to find something you
think is reasonable in this town. The supply of housing in SF
is too small at all but the highest price point. At whatever
level a developer wants to supply more housing, I will say
YES. DO IT. <br>
<br>
</div>
MOREOVER. If it's expensive to build, developers will only be
able to afford to build high priced projects. One of the things
that makes building expensive is fighting with neighbors. So its
ironic (and a little sad) to see people who want lower priced
housing doing things that make building expensive. I think I
said this in another email, but if a smaller budget developer
wants to build a cheaper project, but sees that even the very
rich developer can barely get his project finished because he
has to spend time and resources fighting with neighbors, then
the smaller developer will be like forget it, I can't do this. <br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Jehan
Tremback <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jehan.tremback@gmail.com" target="_blank">jehan.tremback@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">@Eddie- Sorry about the eye! That was the
default Ubuntu avatar, and it somehow got synced to my
email when I ran Pidgin. So the eye is actually open
source! I'll get rid of it though if you want.
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>I'll go over this briefly, but there are better
resources out there. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Let's say rich guy can afford $3000 dollars a month
and wants to live in SF. So landlord charges him $3000
for an apartment because it isn't a closet. Since there
is nowhere else to live in SF, rich guy pays this. New
luxury building opens across the street with really nice
new apartments for $3000 a month. Rich guy decides to
move, and landlord puts apartment back on the market for
$3000. But because all of the other rich guys are also
living in the new luxury building, landlord finds no
tenants. Next month, landlord is forced to lower rent to
$2000 and 4 hackers move in. This is how the market
works.</div>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-Jehan</div>
</font></span></div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div class="h5">On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:46 AM,
Sonja Trauss <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:sonja.trauss@gmail.com"
target="_blank">sonja.trauss@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div class="h5">
<div>Ok so your position is that the whole of the
new housing will be taken up by people who don't
currently live in SF, want to, but won't move
into SF unless new housing is built.
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>Can you describe what it is about the new
housing that will make people who already have
stable, adequate places to live elsewhere move
into it, when they've already decided theyre
not interested in living in any of the
currently available sf housing? Does this
question make sense? What's special about the
new housing? What would make a person move to
SF Only If new housing is built? What is the
scenario. I can think of two. One silly and
one not silly. <span></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div><br>
On Sunday, June 9, 2013, Eddie Che wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>
Oy, greetings. First of all that Eye is
really hateful, let's tone<br>
that down a little! I've been against
the eye because it is oppressive<br>
so, chill. @Jehan.<br>
<br>
Building will increase the population in
San Francisco. Not house the<br>
houseless and not bring down rents.
These are upscale (condos?)<br>
apartments, bringing the added keyword
of gentrification.<br>
<br>
I like the Spain example. Government
here (County, City, State, and<br>
National) could give land that is being
held by it, eg around highway<br>
off-ramps or hills or wherEVER to folks
who are disenchanted with...<br>
corporate rule.<br>
<br>
"liberating land from private control
and corporate interests and for<br>
the common good of all people."<br>
<br>
Can we hack that?<br>
EMCHE, in a tree.<br>
<br>
PS by the way, surprising about SF's
vacant housing units @<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.baycitizen.org/blogs/pulse-of-the-bay/sf-leads-bay-area-vacant-homes/"
target="_blank">https://www.baycitizen.org/blogs/pulse-of-the-bay/sf-leads-bay-area-vacant-homes/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 6:41 PM, GtwoG
PublicOhOne <<a
moz-do-not-send="true">g2g-public01@att.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
> Imagine a news headline saying
"Good news for the economy: food prices
are<br>
> up for the third month in a row!"
Food-owners would celebrate, and<br>
> foodless-rights advocates would
protest, but nothing would change unless
the<br>
> entire system of food-speculation
was curbed.<br>
><br>
> Or imagine this: Dateline:
Marinaleda, Spain. Municipal government
GIVES<br>
> dispossessed people the land and
building materials to build their own<br>
> homes, and pays contractors to
provide assistance with the high-skill
parts<br>
> such as plumbing. This is REAL and
it's happening NOW.<br>
><br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22701384"
target="_blank">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22701384</a><br>
><br>
> "In the wake of Spain's property
crash, hundreds of thousands of homes
have<br>
> been repossessed. While one
regional government says it will seize<br>
> repossessed properties from the
banks, a little town is doing away with<br>
> mortgages altogether. ... In
Marinaleda, residents like 42-year-old<br>
> father-of-three, David Gonzalez
Molina, are building their own homes.<br>
><br>
> "The town hall in this ... town an
hour-and-a-bit east of Seville, has
given<br>
> David 190 sq m (2,000 sq ft) of
land. ... The bricks and mortar are
also a<br>
> gift... from the regional
government of Andalusia. ... Only once
his home is<br>
> finished will he start paying 15
euros (£13) [approx. $26] a month, to
the<br>
> regional government, to refund the
cost of other building materials. ...<br>
><br>
> "...[The town's] Mayor Juan Manuel
Sanchez Gordillo is known for occupying<br>
> land belonging to the wealthy in
Andalusia. ... Last summer, he and his<br>
> left-wing union comrades stole from
supermarkets and handed out the food to<br>
> the poor. "I think it is possible
that a home should be a right, and not a<br>
> business, in Europe", he argues.
Mayor Sanchez Gordillo pours scorn on<br>
> "speculators"....<br>
><br>
> ---<br>
><br>
> Think outside the box, and you
might end up thinking like Mayor Sanchez<br>
> Gordillo.<br>
><br>
> What happens when home prices and
rents keep increasing while average
income<br>
> levels have barely budged since
1974?<br>
><br>
> What happens to the lives of
people, when the health of an economy in
large<br>
> part depends on relentless increase
in the price of a vital necessity that<br>
> is also a fixed resource, such as
the square footage in which to eat,
sleep,<br>
> and wash?<br>
><br>
> Meanwhile developers are building
"luxury" apartments, but the number of<br>
> "affordable" units isn't specified
and always turns out to be less than<br>
> first claimed. How is it that
anyone has a "right" to luxury, at the<br>
> expense of others' poverty and
homelessness?<br>
><br>
> At root, this isn't a race issue of
black and white, though the guardians of<br>
> privilege benefit mightily when
it's framed that way, and people who
have<br>
> common cause are divided against
each other. At root, it's a class issue
of<br>
> green and red.<br>
><br>
> Land speculation is a broken
machine running an obsolete operating
system,<br>
> that's begging to get "rooted."<br>
><br>
> -G<br>
><br>
><br>
> =====<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 13-06-08-Sat 3:06 PM, Sonja
Trauss wrote:<br>
><br>
> I know, it's so outrageous. This
line, "The notion of smart growth — also<br>
> referred to as urban infill — has
been around for years, embraced by a<br>
> certain type of environmentalist,
particularly those concerned with<br>
> protecting open space."<br>
><br>
> Yeah, the type of environmentalist
that is an environmentalist - what is<br>
> this supposed to mean!<br>
><br>
> Also I guess (I hope) these
progressives don't realize that in
opposing<br>
> development in Bayview, they are
contributing to keeping blacks overall<br>
> poorer than whites.<br>
><br>
> Putting renters aside for a minute,
let's consider similarly situated black<br>
> and white homeowners, in similar
income black and white neighborhoods. If<br>
> these neighborhoods are in a city
that is growing in wealth and population<br>
> (like san francisco) both
homeowners should be able to look
forward to their<br>
> house values increasing, right? NO.
House values at first only increase in<br>
> the white neighborhoods, because
the new residents, moving to SF from all<br>
</div>
</div>
<div>
> --<br>
Eddie Miller, BU '10<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true">eddiemill@gmail.com</a> |
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:440-935-5434"
value="+14409355434" target="_blank">440-935-5434</a><br>
Facebook.com/eddiemill |
Twitter.com/eddiemill<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="im">_______________________________________________<br>
sudo-discuss mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org"
target="_blank">sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss"
target="_blank">http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss</a><br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org">sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss">http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>