Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I Have Read Prop F

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 182 posts

Re: I Have Read Prop F

#51

Post by scurvy »

timr wrote: post #46

It's really quite remarkable that you can know so little about something, yet be so judgmental about it at the same time. Go 'mericuh! Prop I is a temporary (18 month) moratorium in one neighborhood (the Mission), for only a limited subset of projects, coupled with the requirement that the city has to create a "neighborbood stabilization plan" by the end of that period [1]. It is not a "moratorium on building new mar…

The city has found that the temporary moratorium would have no effect on pricing. http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2015/09/long-term-effect-...

Re: I Have Read Prop F

#52

Post by timr »

toby wrote: post #49
timr wrote: post #46

It's really quite remarkable that you can know so little about something, yet be so judgmental about it at the same time. Go 'mericuh! Prop I is a temporary (18 month) moratorium in one neighborhood (the Mission), for only a limited subset of projects, coupled with the requirement that the city has to create a "neighborbood stabilization plan" by the end of that period [1]. It is not a "moratorium on building new mar…

Just want to point out that some of us have read the full text of the Proposition, know exactly what it does, and the rationale, and still think it will be completely ineffective. For example, SF's Chief Economist: http://sfcontroller.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid...

The point of the moratorium is not to affect prices; it's to give the city a chance to come up with a plan that will protect affordable housing in this one neighborhood, without losing the ability to act.

Viewed in that light, this report is a vote for the plan, not against it: it gives a little breathing room, and probably won't affect prices either way. Whether or not it "works" is entirely speculative: someone has to come up with an actual solution in the longer term.

I believe the advocates of this proposition want the city to buy the remaining vacant lots in the Mission, and use them to build affordable housing projects, but I could be wrong about that.

Re: I Have Read Prop F

#53

Post by luckydata »

reading the proposition would help, but that's beside the point ain't it?

Someone really needed to let us know how fantastic things are when the gubmint gets out of the way. Got it.

Re: I Have Read Prop F

#54

Post by luckydata »

Mz wrote: post #7

Wow: This is where it’s clear the authors overreached and created a toxic spill waiting to happen. If the City finds you did indeed host someone or assisted someone else as such, even for one night, then the City can take action against you. But then it gets absolutely bonkers. If you didn’t host anyone, or it was just your Aunt Rose visiting for the weekend, then your cranky neighbor can still sue you anyway, and th…

It would be incredibly bad if it was true, but it's not. The willingness to believe EVERYTHING a tech company shill will publish online by this community speaks very poorly of its character and intelligence.

Re: I Have Read Prop F

#55

Post by scurvy »

timr wrote: post #46

It's really quite remarkable that you can know so little about something, yet be so judgmental about it at the same time. Go 'mericuh! Prop I is a temporary (18 month) moratorium in one neighborhood (the Mission), for only a limited subset of projects, coupled with the requirement that the city has to create a "neighborbood stabilization plan" by the end of that period [1]. It is not a "moratorium on building new mar…

Out of curiosity, what is the actual "alarming rate" of people getting just-cause evicted from their homes? I know that Ellis Act evictions dropped from 2013 to 2014. I'm guessing that the trend held steady. The number of units city-wide is also still in the hundreds, not thousands. That doesn't sound like a crisis.

Re: I Have Read Prop F

#56

Post by noyounoyounoyou »

luckydata wrote: post #53

reading the proposition would help, but that's beside the point ain't it? Someone really needed to let us know how fantastic things are when the gubmint gets out of the way. Got it.

Get over your self satisfied prejudices and actually think for a minute. Other cities don't have the same housing crisis as San Francisco and guess what, those cities also don't have bizarre and impossible restrictions on new constructions. So yeah, it is the city government causing the problem and suggestioning they only need another 18 months to come up with a plan is myopoc bullshit, they've had twenty years and still failed.

So so so amazing how people will refuse to actually examine their assumptions.

Re: I Have Read Prop F

#57

Post by s73v3r »

scurvy wrote: post #51
timr wrote: post #46

It's really quite remarkable that you can know so little about something, yet be so judgmental about it at the same time. Go 'mericuh! Prop I is a temporary (18 month) moratorium in one neighborhood (the Mission), for only a limited subset of projects, coupled with the requirement that the city has to create a "neighborbood stabilization plan" by the end of that period [1]. It is not a "moratorium on building new mar…

The city has found that the temporary moratorium would have no effect on pricing. http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2015/09/long-term-effect-...

Isn't the moratorium there to give the city time to come up with a plan? So by itself it wouldn't have an effect, but whatever the city comes up with should have the effect (whether it does or not depends on which crystal ball you're looking at).

Re: I Have Read Prop F

#58

Post by otterley »

luckydata wrote: post #54
Mz wrote: post #7

Wow: This is where it’s clear the authors overreached and created a toxic spill waiting to happen. If the City finds you did indeed host someone or assisted someone else as such, even for one night, then the City can take action against you. But then it gets absolutely bonkers. If you didn’t host anyone, or it was just your Aunt Rose visiting for the weekend, then your cranky neighbor can still sue you anyway, and th…

It would be incredibly bad if it was true, but it's not. The willingness to believe EVERYTHING a tech company shill will publish online by this community speaks very poorly of its character and intelligence.

It would be helpful if you could clarify the misunderstanding, then. How is the author's interpretation of the proposed legislation incorrect?

Re: I Have Read Prop F

#59

Post by toby »

timr wrote: post #52
toby wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just want to point out that some of us have read the full text of the Proposition, know exactly what it does, and the rationale, and still think it will be completely ineffective. For example, SF's Chief Economist: http://sfcontroller.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid...

The point of the moratorium is not to affect prices; it's to give the city a chance to come up with a plan that will protect affordable housing in this one neighborhood, without losing the ability to act. Viewed in that light, this report is a vote for the plan, not against it: it gives a little breathing room, and probably won't affect prices either way. Whether or not it "works" is entirely speculative: someone has…

I understand that. It's actually addressed starting on page 26 of the report -- basic conclusion is that a landowner / developer will more likely hold the land until after the moratorium (when it will be even more valuable due to the moratorium) than develop below-market units at a lower price.

I've worked hard to understand both sides of the issue. In practice what I strongly believe will happen is that ~800 market rate units will be delayed for 18 months, nothing else will change and the politicians who pushed this won't be taken to task because they're all terming out and eyeing Sacramento.

Re: I Have Read Prop F

#60

Post by fredkbloggs »

pbreit wrote: post #18
thechao wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't even possibly fathom any reason to be either pro or anti airbnb. It's like being pro- or anti- fuchsia, to me. Could you explain why you don't like airbnb? Did the CEO kick you in the puppies, or something?

It's more like being pro or con U2 or bee stings. How could you not have an opinion? Personally, I think AirBnB has not done a very good job helping communities figure out what the best situation should be. Many/most leases and HOAs forbid short-term leases for very good reason and yet AirBnB turns an eye. And for people who own their residences, many areas are zoned non-commercial, again for very good reasons, and A…

I find it very easy to not have an opinion. Whether my neighbor wants to rent out part of his property via airbnb, craigslist, or not at all makes no difference to me. It does not affect my quality of life, does not interfere with my enjoyment of my own property, and is a private transaction among 3 (or more) parties of which I am not one. I just don't care, at all. That doesn't mean that his tenants might not cause me problems, but in that case I will deal with the tenants themselves and/or my neighbor concerning the actual problem. Such things have nothing to do with airbnb and can and do happen regardless of whether tenants are short- or long-term (or the owners themselves).

People who are either pro-airbnb because they feel it makes some kind of political or economic statement or places them into some kind of club they like, or are anti-airbnb because they are busybodies and like to find things to be outraged over or similarly feel that being so places them in a club they like, find it impossible to imagine having no opinion of airbnb. Personally, I find it impossible to imagine myself in either of those camps. To each of us the limits of our own imagination, I suppose.

Post reply on HN