<div dir="ltr"><div>hah yeah - that's true - it's possible, likely even, that the population of SF is going to expand even faster than the supply of housing. If thats the case then we should not only be building, but building more! Not building would be the worst.<br>
<br></div>There are a lot of ppl that want to live here, the thing is, it's politics, not technology or geography that limits the supply of housing. This isnt 1800, we know how to build tall buildings. We even know how to build tall buildings that withstand earthquakes. Like many types of scarcity, scarcity of housing is 100% solvable, 100% manufactured. I'm not exactly sure who benefits from scarcity of housing. Obviously current owners of SF property, and current Oakland stakeholders. I don't see how the genzigarden types benefit from land scarcity. They strike me as people that own nothing, but maybe they are Oakland stakeholders? <br>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:24 PM, GtwoG PublicOhOne <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:g2g-public01@att.net" target="_blank">g2g-public01@att.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
Rich Guy decides to move into new apartment across the street for
$3,000/month. Owner of his old apartment puts it back on the market
for $3,000/month. Four guys who have just scored H1B visas move in
the next day. <br>
<br>
Four hackers lose their jobs to the guys with the H1B visas. Three
of them are living in tiny "studios" for $2,000/month, but one of
them has a 1-bedroom apartment at the same price, so all four of
them "consolidate" into the 1-BR together to save money. <br>
<br>
That's how "the market" _really_ works. When there are more humans
than there are resources to employ and house the humans, the value
of humans declines relative to the resources needed to support
them. <br>
<br>
Meanwhile, since our unemployed hackers also have carpentry skills,
they move into the one-bedroom apartment together and build two sets
of double bunks in the bedroom for sleeping. They soundproof the
closet to provide "private space" for carrying on their sex lives,
and use a scheduling app to coordinate use of the closet, and use of
the shower as well. <br>
<br>
They spend two hours a week having "house meetings" with topics such
as "who left a mess in the sex-closet this weekend?" and "which
blend of coffee to buy for the network-connected coffee maker?" The
one who's gay publishes sarcastic "back in the closet" jokes to a
mailing list, and the jokes go viral. One of them 3D-prints a
multiple-hopper input device for the coffee maker and a
cup-sequencer for its output, enabling it to handle four different
blends of coffee at once, and is hailed as a genius by the other
three.<br>
<br>
-G.<br>
<br>
<br>
=====<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 13-06-10-Mon 1:46 PM, Jehan Tremback
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<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>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-Jehan</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Sonja
Trauss <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sonja.trauss@gmail.com" target="_blank">sonja.trauss@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>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 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>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 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>eddiemill@gmail.com</a> |
<a 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>
_______________________________________________<br>
sudo-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org" target="_blank">sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
<a href="mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org" target="_blank">sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>