"Also there's a difference between a 160-square-foot house you build for yourself on land you and your friends own, and a 160-square-foot cell in an apartment complex that some developer builds as a means of extracting more money from the tenants."
If you want to go out to the country and build a house on cheap land, that's your choice. You will be damaging the environment with your inevitable automobile use. If you want to live in the city, as many of us do, you will have to deal with the fact that many other people do as well.
There are 2 ways to get more people onto a smaller piece of land-
1. Smaller apartments (I put tenants subdividing apartments in this category as well)2. Replace 1950's style suburban houses with high rises.
These facts are completely independent of whatever system of government and economy.
-Jehan
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 4:32 AM, GtwoG PublicOhOne <g2g-public01@att.net> wrote:
Yes, there are a few intentional communities from the 1960s that succeeded. Twin Oaks is one. The Farm is another. There are others, less well known.
There are a bunch of books (Commitment and Community, Builders of the Dawn, others), and there are also the websites for the Federation of Intentional Communities, the Federation of Egalitarian Communities, Communities magazine, and others.
Why Americans buy huge houses: "because they can."
Hong Kong & Tokyo apartments are quite a bit larger than those prison-sized apts that are being developed in the USA now. Really: the goal isn't sustainability or affordability, it's the 1/3 increase in rent per square foot, compared to 1- and 2-bedroom apartments. Also there's a difference between a 160-square-foot house you build for yourself on land you and your friends own, and a 160-square-foot cell in an apartment complex that some developer builds as a means of extracting more money from the tenants. As in, the difference between a nest that a mouse makes for itself, and a standardized mouse-cage in a laboratory. It's all about autonomy and control.
Solutions: that would make an interesting discussion topic some night, and/or we could open up a thread here.
Ex-felons selling Christmas trees: Probably a carefully self-selected group, with a common goal to avoid further trouble with the law, and very strict internal rules. The risk of going down the spiral back to prison is a powerful motivator. And the difference between strict rules by voluntary consensus, vs. strict rules by order of the Warden, makes all the difference.
I wasn't proposing absolute socialism or bust. Only "socialism for everyone or for no-one," rather than the status-quo of "socialism for the rich, social darwinism for the rest of us." A little dose of socialism, applied equally across the board, does wonders. Compare quality of life in Northern Europe, to quality of life here.
The single largest predictor of violent social unrest, is the disparity of income between the top and bottom in a society. A little socialism buys a lot of peace.
-G.
======
On 13-06-10-Mon 11:49 PM, Romy Ilano wrote:
Are there any alternative living spaces from the 1960s that experienced success?
Perhaps we could learn from their example. There was a big coffee table being passed around about communes etc three or four years ago-- forget the title
Usually I find that people have attempted to tackle these problems in the past.
Also from the conversation it's not immediately clear to me what the clearest solutions or motivations to the problems if any would be.
For me I don't understand why Americans have a burning desire to buy houses too large to live in, too expensive to buy, too costly to maintain ... The single occupancy small rooms were derided as being anti sex??? Yet to me those are as large as what you would find in Hong Kong or Tokyo
There's the Kearny street project which sells the Xmas trees and rehabilitates Ex felons. They have shared living quarters along with the self run businesses and I don't think there are guards.. It's all regulated by the participants .
I do not agree with the zero sum solution of absolute socialism or bust. It's like saying there should be no unions. It's very extreme
"Suddenly $5,000 is the new $3,000": Instant viral meme, good one Andrew!
And $30,000/year is the new $60,000/year, thanks to all those H1B visas driving down wages.
This is the interesting thing about "markets":
When rents go sky-high, that's a "market" and the plutocracy chants that the Holy Invisible Hand should reign supreme. But when employers can't find people who'll work on farms for $3.00/hour, or write code for $30,000/year, then it's time for a little socialism for the plutocracy, by way of opening the H1B floodgates. And that makes property owners happy too, so it's a two-fer!
"Jobs Americans won't do" is what economists call a "price signal", which translates as "jobs Americans won't do AT THAT PRICE." If the plutocracy was at all consistent (ha ha funny) they wouldn't go running for socialistic interventions to drive down labor costs, they'd suck it up and pay the market price, whether that means paying farm workers $15/hour, or paying coders $60,000/year.
There's a reason it's more difficult to get into DSNY (Department of Sanitation, City of New York) than it is to get into Yale. It's spelled U-N-I-O-N.
Socialism for all, or socialism for none!
-G.
=====
On 13-06-10-Mon 4:59 PM, Andrew wrote:
Lets be clear that no one is arguing there should be less housing in SF. The argument is that current housing in SF is too expensive and vacant. There isn't a scarcity as much as a price fixing scheme going on. The only purpose for building new units is for the developers and landlords to get in on the scheme while it's hot, hoping for the market to bounce back and suddenly $5,000 is the new $3,000 in SF and they are sitting on prime real estate. In the meantime the units will remain vacant or just rented out (or leased) to people moving in to the City for work.
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 4:32 PM, GtwoG PublicOhOne <g2g-public01@att.net> wrote:
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.
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).
Re. "at whatever level a developer wants to provide more housing, I'll say YES DO IT..." Be careful what you wish for...
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.).
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.
Albert Einstein was a pacifist, and Edward Teller was a hawk. Both agreed that the exponential function is the most dangerous math on Earth.
-G.
=====
On 13-06-10-Mon 3:41 PM, Sonja Trauss wrote:
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.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: http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/apa/ 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.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.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!'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.This is a scenario, so we should explore its antecedents and consequences.Yeah Jehan that's how I understand it.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 rich_guy_2 would not have moved into SF if the new apartments hadn't been built.
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Jehan Tremback <jehan.tremback@gmail.com> wrote:
@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.
I'll go over this briefly, but there are better resources out there.
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.
-Jehan
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Sonja Trauss <sonja.trauss@gmail.com> wrote:
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-homes/
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 6:41 PM, GtwoG PublicOhOne <g2g-public01@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@gmail.com | 440-935-5434
Facebook.com/eddiemill | Twitter.com/eddiemill
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
_______________________________________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
--
-------Andrew LoweCell: 831-332-2507
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss