131–140 of 157 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Which of these groups do you think it is more important I dunno, let the market decide? From your question, it seems like you claim to have a self-evident answer, why?
Why is the market any better? Our reasoning is based on the needs of human life, not who has more money.
> “This is a win for San Francisco residents,” Herrera said. “Whether you’re a tenant or a landlord who has been following the law, this is a victory. This outcome frees up more homes for long-term tenants and stops unfair competition in the marketplace. The serious financial penalty is an important deterrent. It sends a clear message to those looking to illegally profit off of San Francisco’s housing crisis: Don’t t…
It’s actually physically impossible to build housing at the rate that SF is growing. Even if you got rid of the politics. Even if there was unlimited land. The issue is that you literally cannot build housing at the skyrocketing rate of growth that SF is experiencing. That’s why this is a crisis, it’s essentially a mass migration to SF.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>gouge visitors >save $50 on a hotel how the hell can you simultaneously be gouged and save money? what makes the long term resident more deserving than the short term visitor? why should the rootless pay a subsidy to the rooted?
I mean, that's a fairly easy question to answer. The rooted pay taxes, provide stability to a neighborhood, and are invested in the upkeep of their properties. They also tend to be better neighbors than a constant flow of random people who may not care whether they make noise, or disturb others. I certainly would be incredibly peeved if I paid a million dollars for a unit and then the person down the hall turned thei…
In other words, there's good reason to suspect that having a unit rented out to a succession of short term residents will produce more tax revenue for the city than having it occupied by one long-term resident.
As for stability, I don't think we're in any danger of destabilizing major cities from lack of long-term residents.
>>certainly would be incredibly peeved if I paid a million dollars for a unit and then the person down the hall turned their apartment into a miniature hotel
This should be decided by the contract you signed with your condo association when you purchased the property, not an arbitrary intervention in private contracts and property by the city.
Also, would it make any difference to you if the steady rotation of guests were not paying? If not, why not make the rule focused on the problematic condition, which is a large number of different people visiting/staying, rather than whether there was financial compensation?
> As part of city law, San Francisco requires property owners renting out units for less than 30 days to register with the city’s office of short-term rentals, as well as be a permanent resident of that unit. As far as I can tell, AirBnb is blatantly complicit in allowing renters to violate this law. When I moved to SF I stayed in an AirBnb for a few weeks. It didn't occur to me when I booked that it could have been…
For both owners of properties and travelers, this is good for you, so you do mental gymnastics to escape it as you can see all over this comment section :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is the market any better? Our reasoning is based on the needs of human life, not who has more money.
Communists in Soviet Russia thought this, too. How do you know your reasoning is sound?
> “This is a win for San Francisco residents,” Herrera said. “Whether you’re a tenant or a landlord who has been following the law, this is a victory. This outcome frees up more homes for long-term tenants and stops unfair competition in the marketplace. The serious financial penalty is an important deterrent. It sends a clear message to those looking to illegally profit off of San Francisco’s housing crisis: Don’t t…
I read an article that did the math on the SF housing issue (it’s killing me that I can’t find it, but it was on HN). It’s actually physically impossible to build housing at the rate that SF is growing. Even if you got rid of the politics. Even if there was unlimited land. The issue is that you literally cannot build housing at the skyrocketing rate of growth that SF is experiencing. That’s why this is a crisis, it’s…
> “This is a win for San Francisco residents,” Herrera said. “Whether you’re a tenant or a landlord who has been following the law, this is a victory. This outcome frees up more homes for long-term tenants and stops unfair competition in the marketplace. The serious financial penalty is an important deterrent. It sends a clear message to those looking to illegally profit off of San Francisco’s housing crisis: Don’t t…
I read an article that did the math on the SF housing issue (it’s killing me that I can’t find it, but it was on HN). It’s actually physically impossible to build housing at the rate that SF is growing. Even if you got rid of the politics. Even if there was unlimited land. The issue is that you literally cannot build housing at the skyrocketing rate of growth that SF is experiencing. That’s why this is a crisis, it’s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you also support Facebook giving up names and addresses to law enforcement?
This is a little different. Law Enforcement want data from Facebook because it's useful to an investigation. Law Enforcement want data from AirBnB because the act of working with AirBnb is the illegal part. So asking a drug dealer for the name of his distributors seems reasonable to me. Or asking the illegal online betting company the names of those who were placing illegal bets. Though the regulations should hopeful…
If continuing the (poor) Facebook analogy, this is akin to asking for a full list of their users, even the ones abiding by the law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re kidding right? Eminent domain is used daily in the US and around the world. It would literally be impossible to build and maintain a transportation network without it.
Okay but we're talking about razing houses and replacing it not with infrastructure and transportation networks but with more housing in a state with already a quarter of the nation's homeless population. I have so many questions about what happens in that regional development council hypothetical with astronomically high housing prices and homelessness: - Do you play benevolent city planner and let current residents…
Won't their checks be for fair market value of their expropriate property? So by definition, they should be able to relocate within the neighborhood?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SF really is in a situation where a regional development council needs to come in and clear out a lot of the low-density housing, but since that's unlikely to happen this story makes me quite happy.
Pardon my snark, but this sounds like eminent domain wearing a velvet glove.
There's a bill like this every few years, and it always gets shot down. The latest is SB827, which was shot down, too.
https://slate.com/business/2018/01/california-bill-sb827-res...
In general, the problem isn't with people being unwilling to sell to developers; the problem is that even after the developers get the property, they are prevented from developing it in a high density manner.