10 Jun
2013
10 Jun
'13
11:01 a.m.
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.
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.
On Sunday, June 9, 2013, Eddie Che wrote:
Oy, greetings. First of all that Eye is really
hateful, let's tone
that down a little! I've been against the eye because it is oppressive
so, chill. @Jehan.
Building will increase the population in San Francisco. Not house the
houseless and not bring down rents. These are upscale (condos?)
apartments, bringing the added keyword of gentrification.
I like the Spain example. Government here (County, City, State, and
National) could give land that is being held by it, eg around highway
off-ramps or hills or wherEVER to folks who are disenchanted with...
corporate rule.
"liberating land from private control and corporate interests and for
the common good of all people."
Can we hack that?
EMCHE, in a tree.
PS by the way, surprising about SF's vacant housing units @
https://www.baycitizen.org/blogs/pulse-of-the-bay/sf-leads-bay-area-vacant-…
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 6:41 PM, GtwoG PublicOhOne <g2g-public01(a)att.net>
wrote:
Imagine a news headline saying "Good news for the economy: food prices
are
up for the third month in a row!"
Food-owners would celebrate, and
foodless-rights advocates would protest, but nothing would change unless
the
entire system of food-speculation was curbed.
Or imagine this: Dateline: Marinaleda, Spain. Municipal government
GIVES
dispossessed people the land and building
materials to build their own
homes, and pays contractors to provide assistance with the high-skill
parts
such as plumbing. This is REAL and it's
happening NOW.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22701384
"In the wake of Spain's property crash, hundreds of thousands of homes
have
been repossessed. While one regional government
says it will seize
repossessed properties from the banks, a little town is doing away with
mortgages altogether. ... In Marinaleda, residents like 42-year-old
father-of-three, David Gonzalez Molina, are building their own homes.
"The town hall in this ... town an hour-and-a-bit east of Seville, has
given
David 190 sq m (2,000 sq ft) of land. ... The
bricks and mortar are
also a
gift... from the regional government of
Andalusia. ... Only once his
home is
finished will he start paying 15 euros (£13)
[approx. $26] a month, to
the
regional government, to refund the cost of other
building materials. ...
"...[The town's] Mayor Juan Manuel Sanchez Gordillo is known for
occupying
land belonging to the wealthy in Andalusia. ...
Last summer, he and his
left-wing union comrades stole from supermarkets and handed out the food
to
the poor. "I think it is possible that a
home should be a right, and
not a
business, in Europe", he argues. Mayor
Sanchez Gordillo pours scorn on
"speculators"....
---
Think outside the box, and you might end up thinking like Mayor Sanchez
Gordillo.
What happens when home prices and rents keep increasing while average
income
levels have barely budged since 1974?
What happens to the lives of people, when the health of an economy in
large
part depends on relentless increase in the price
of a vital necessity
that
is also a fixed resource, such as the square
footage in which to eat,
sleep,
and wash?
Meanwhile developers are building "luxury" apartments, but the number of
"affordable" units isn't specified and always turns out to be less than
first claimed. How is it that anyone has a "right" to luxury, at the
expense of others' poverty and homelessness?
At root, this isn't a race issue of black and white, though the
guardians of
privilege benefit mightily when it's framed
that way, and people who have
common cause are divided against each other. At root, it's a class
issue of
green and red.
Land speculation is a broken machine running an obsolete operating
system,
that's begging to get "rooted."
-G
=====
On 13-06-08-Sat 3:06 PM, Sonja Trauss wrote:
I know, it's so outrageous. This line, "The notion of smart growth — also
referred to as urban infill — has been around for years, embraced by a
certain type of environmentalist, particularly those concerned with
protecting open space."
Yeah, the type of environmentalist that is an environmentalist - what is
this supposed to mean!
Also I guess (I hope) these progressives don't realize that in opposing
development in Bayview, they are contributing to keeping blacks overall
poorer than whites.
Putting renters aside for a minute, let's consider similarly situated
black
and white homeowners, in similar income black and
white neighborhoods. If
these neighborhoods are in a city that is growing in wealth and
population
(like san francisco) both homeowners should be
able to look forward to
their
house values increasing, right? NO. House values
at first only increase
in
the white neighborhoods, because the new
residents, moving to SF from all
--
Eddie Miller, BU '10
eddiemill(a)gmail.com | 440-935-5434
Facebook.com/eddiemill | Twitter.com/eddiemill