https://archive.is/nHQgm (non paywall)
Bay Area homeowner is the face of California’s latest housing drama
111–120 of 228 posts
Re: Bay Area homeowner is the face of California’s latest housing drama
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
Other than calling "nonsense", you haven't really made the case against for something that has precedent. Care to take another whack at it?
$550,000 a unit. Come on. You can’t be serious that this is a solution. https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle-business-health-califor...
The only to solve homelessness in a city, definitionally, are getting the homeless to move out, or getting them housing. Given the insane real estate prices in the area, $550K seems accurate to buy them housing. Unless you plan to round them up and ship them to camps, or find a way to get them jobs that pay well enough to lease a $550K unit, you're sort of out of options.
Re: Bay Area homeowner is the face of California’s latest housing drama
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Residential-only zoning is "the bad kind of zoning". It wasn't invented to keep factories away from homes; it was /literally/ invented in Berkeley to stop Chinese immigrants from being able to afford homes by running laundry businesses out of them.
[flagged]
A brave, throwaway opinion.
Re: Bay Area homeowner is the face of California’s latest housing drama
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
$550,000 a unit. Come on. You can’t be serious that this is a solution. https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle-business-health-califor...
> CEO John Maceri said the state has set up local governments for success, but it will take a combined effort of politicians and service providers to sustain the program. He estimates conversion costs will be far less than $550,000 per unit, the going rate for building from the ground up. I assume this is where you got your number? Why skip the "far less" part?
Just fast googling. Here’s another source at $300k - still insane.
https://www.ktvu.com/news/oakland-san-francisco-awarded-gran...
Re: Bay Area homeowner is the face of California’s latest housing drama
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
They really do re-spawn if being homeless now means being given a nice, new, clean place to live. Why wouldn’t they?
Do you really think people with housing would become homeless in hopes of getting a new place?
I think there are a lot of people actually living with relatives and friends who would “become homeless”
Re: Bay Area homeowner is the face of California’s latest housing drama
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Residential-only zoning is "the bad kind of zoning". It wasn't invented to keep factories away from homes; it was /literally/ invented in Berkeley to stop Chinese immigrants from being able to afford homes by running laundry businesses out of them.
Correct me if I'm misrepresenting you here, but are you claiming that the reason that something is invented is always the reason why it continues to be used?
Now it's probably because people don't like "traffic" outside their homes, but basically yes, that's why single-family zoning is still in place. It's extremely silly to want to ban eg corner stores in your neighborhood.
In SF where people have discovered "left-NIMBYism", people will now argue that keeping it is fighting racism, but then if you go into the suburbs they'll still happily argue the original position.
Re: Bay Area homeowner is the face of California’s latest housing drama
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did a search to check the history of this claim, but maybe I wasn’t searching for the right thing. Would you mind sharing a link?
No it’s just completely untrue. This is a common tactic today to say something was created for purposes so the entire concept is bad naturally. See how activists say policing was invented to catch slaves or some ridiculous claim. There’s a bunch of others.
I said literally and I meant literally. You can just look up the Berkeley city council meeting minutes! That's why they said they were doing it!
Re: Bay Area homeowner is the face of California’s latest housing drama
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did a search to check the history of this claim, but maybe I wasn’t searching for the right thing. Would you mind sharing a link?
If you have an interest, the most comprehensive book I'm aware of is "Zoned in the USA: The Origins and Implications of American Land-Use Regulation" by Sonia Hirt. Cornell University Press. 2014. ISBN 978-0-8014-5305-2. She's the one quoted in the LA Times article: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-01-19/single-fam... Full disclosure, I was so impressed with Prof. Hirt's book that I wrote her Wikipedia pag…
Also The Color of Law: https://www.epi.org/publication/the-color-of-law-a-forgotten...
Re: Bay Area homeowner is the face of California’s latest housing drama
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
$550,000 a unit. Come on. You can’t be serious that this is a solution. https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle-business-health-califor...
The only to solve homelessness in a city, definitionally, are getting the homeless to move out, or getting them housing. Given the insane real estate prices in the area, $550K seems accurate to buy them housing. Unless you plan to round them up and ship them to camps, or find a way to get them jobs that pay well enough to lease a $550K unit, you're sort of out of options.
Homeless shelters? Seems to be a heck of a lot cheaper and more scalable than putting people up in 300-500k condos?
Re: Bay Area homeowner is the face of California’s latest housing drama
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
Residential-only zoning is "the bad kind of zoning". It wasn't invented to keep factories away from homes; it was /literally/ invented in Berkeley to stop Chinese immigrants from being able to afford homes by running laundry businesses out of them.
Correct me if I'm misrepresenting you here, but are you claiming that the reason that something is invented is always the reason why it continues to be used?
[deleted]