Re: [sudo-discuss] WOSP – City of Oakland’s Plan for Gentrification: A Target For Anti-Displacement Activity : Indybay

I don't know about the bay area but the phenomenon of luxury buildings that are scarcely inhabited is a function of the current market based in finance and speculation: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/nyregion/paying-top-dollar-for-condos-and… http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/world/europe/a-slice-of-london-so-exclusi… Just pointing out that high-end development shouldn't be expected to trickle down, at least within our lifetimes, or without radical political change. These sorts of buildings won't be going up in West Oakland, though. m On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Jehan Tremback &lt;jehan.tremback(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: Marcus- Do you have some examples of these uninhabited luxury projects in the Bay Area? On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 8:16 PM, Marcus Owens &lt;owens.marcus(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: Suburban living is not conducive generating value in an innovation/cognitive economy. The suburbs, and the externality of time spent in commute, like increasing privatization in other spheres, will be the burden of the poor in the future. Just saying "rich people should live in the suburbs" is not only dumb but it obscures the actual dynamics of what is driving contemporary urban development. The mission was working class because a large labor force was needed in the nearby working waterfront and industrial zones. That mode of production is gone and isn't coming back. That's why as Sonja says we need to use the excess capital now to build as much housing and infrastructure as possible in ways that is socially and environmentally acceptable. Unlike Sonja I don't think speculative luxury projects trickle down, but are rather flipped from investor to investor and never inhabited. m On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Andrew &lt;andrew(a)roshambomedia.com&gt; wrote: "Forcing people into the suburbs is bad for those people, and bad for the environment. If you're anti urban development, you're pro-freeway." I'm pro subway, we should have an actual one in the bay area. at this point rich people should be living in the suburbs not in the cities. I mean this is a tech boom. Which means for most jobs that are making a ton a money you can work anywhere, so work from your swanky apartment in Concord or Walnut Creek, not in The Mission. Makes sense to me. On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 4:41 PM, The Doctor &lt;drwho(a)virtadpt.net&gt; wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 05/17/2014 12:17 PM, Sonja Trauss wrote: The argument can be made that people are coming here because they can afford it, and they think that starting here will give them a chance to get rich. - -- The Doctor [412/724/301/703] [ZS] Developer, Project Byzantium: http://project-byzantium.org/ PGP: 0x807B17C1 / 7960 1CDC 85C9 0B63 8D9F DD89 3BD8 FF2B 807B 17C1 WWW: https://drwho.virtadpt.net/ The owls are not what they seem. _______________________________________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss -- ------- Andrew Lowe Cell: 831-332-2507 http://rosha <http://roshambomedia.com> -- Marcus Owens 301-775-7876