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

41–50 of 182 posts

Re: I Have Read Prop F

#41

Post by mahyarm »

ubernostrum wrote: post #25
on_ wrote: post #12

I Have Read this Medium Post. The author makes a great case against Prop F, prop F seems like a totally shitty law and isn't going to fix the housing problem. It sounds like that isn't what the law is about anyway, but there is a great way to fix the housing problem. The argument he seems to allude to in his notes, is that people seem to choose sides based on their sentiment surrounding the current resedential/housin…

Of course, California also interferes with the market to discourage selling real estate. Proposition 13 disconnected property tax rates from the value of the property (by capping the increase in assessed value at 2% per year, far below the increase in actual market value). Which created a massive incentive to hold real estate as long as possible without selling, since the only time the tax rate can reset to being bas…

It's basically rent control for property owners. California: The land of rent control.

Re: I Have Read Prop F

#42

Post by [deleted] »

bsimpson wrote: post #37
geebee wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a (slightly updated) repost of an earlier response of mine on this topic. Everyone has an opinion about airbnb. Here's my big worry. San Francisco's population of children has plummeted in my lifetime (I grew up in SF in the 70s). In this time, I think it has gone from about 22% to a current rate of 14% or so. I guess it's just important to me that SF continue to be a place people are from, rather than a plac…

I'm curious what you think of all the young people who move into the city after college and become roommates with one another. I've lived with people who make $50,000 per year, and with people who make 2 or 3 times that much. Because studios and one-bedrooms have become so expensive, we've started renting spaces with anywhere from 2 to 6 bedrooms. Having 6 adults who can afford to collectively pay $9000+ a month bidd…

[deleted]

Re: I Have Read Prop F

#43

Post by fraserharris »

bsder wrote: post #33
pbreit wrote: post #20

AirBnB needs to step up and suggest what it thinks are some of the right ways to handle this. The fact is, many/most leases and HOAs forbid short term rentals, and for good reasons. As well, many areas are zoned non-commercial, again for good reasons. But people certainly should have some degree of autonomy when it comes to their personal property. The question is, what is it? What I never understood is why short ter…

> But people certainly should have some degree of autonomy when it comes to their personal property. The question is, what is it? That is why we elect people. To answer these kinds of hard questions. > What I never understood is why short term rental regulations aren't modeled more closely off BnB laws than hotel laws. Part of the whole kerfuffle is because AirBnB was encouraging people to break the laws that actuall…

The heart of your argument is that there is some clear distinction between residential and commercial which doesn't actually exist. Residential properties have always been used for profit - its called an apartment. These visitors are renting in a residential area precisely because they want a residential experience.

The "burden" on your neighbors from short-term visitors is highly overblown. What actual impact on the elementary school is short-term visitors going to have? Is their driving to & from the home ever so more frequent than a full-time occupant? Do you think they are having rowdy parties despite self-selecting to stay in a residential neighborhood? Or that they would be a pedophile (which federal laws already ban from staying within a short distance from an elementary school?)

Re: I Have Read Prop F

#44

Post by toby »

bsder wrote: post #33
pbreit wrote: post #20

AirBnB needs to step up and suggest what it thinks are some of the right ways to handle this. The fact is, many/most leases and HOAs forbid short term rentals, and for good reasons. As well, many areas are zoned non-commercial, again for good reasons. But people certainly should have some degree of autonomy when it comes to their personal property. The question is, what is it? What I never understood is why short ter…

> But people certainly should have some degree of autonomy when it comes to their personal property. The question is, what is it? That is why we elect people. To answer these kinds of hard questions. > What I never understood is why short term rental regulations aren't modeled more closely off BnB laws than hotel laws. Part of the whole kerfuffle is because AirBnB was encouraging people to break the laws that actuall…

> That is why we elect people. To answer these kinds of hard questions.

Yes, and the people we elected actually already answered this question wrt short-term rentals. Propositions like this one undermine this process.

How many people do you think voting for Prop F will have read it?

Re: I Have Read Prop F

#45

Post by [deleted] »

[deleted] wrote: post #42
bsimpson wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious what you think of all the young people who move into the city after college and become roommates with one another. I've lived with people who make $50,000 per year, and with people who make 2 or 3 times that much. Because studios and one-bedrooms have become so expensive, we've started renting spaces with anywhere from 2 to 6 bedrooms. Having 6 adults who can afford to collectively pay $9000+ a month bidd…

[deleted]

[deleted]

Re: I Have Read Prop F

#46

Post by timr »

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 market-rate housing", as you say.

The idea is that the Mission is undergoing a land-grab by speculators, that poor people are losing (they are), and that the battle will be over by the time a coherent plan is formulated to do anything about it. Whether or not you believe this to be the correct approach, it does nobody any good to mischaracterize it as something that is obviously and painfully stupid.

I realize it's not at all fashionable on HN to point out that life is more complicated than chapter one, paragraph one of a high-school economics textbook...but prop I might actually be a good idea over here in the real world, where actual poor people are being evicted from the only places they can afford in the city, at alarming rates.

[1] http://ballotpedia.org/City_of_San_Francisco_Mission_Distric...

Re: I Have Read Prop F

#47

Post by dragonwriter »

bsder wrote: post #33
pbreit wrote: post #20

AirBnB needs to step up and suggest what it thinks are some of the right ways to handle this. The fact is, many/most leases and HOAs forbid short term rentals, and for good reasons. As well, many areas are zoned non-commercial, again for good reasons. But people certainly should have some degree of autonomy when it comes to their personal property. The question is, what is it? What I never understood is why short ter…

> But people certainly should have some degree of autonomy when it comes to their personal property. The question is, what is it? That is why we elect people. To answer these kinds of hard questions. > What I never understood is why short term rental regulations aren't modeled more closely off BnB laws than hotel laws. Part of the whole kerfuffle is because AirBnB was encouraging people to break the laws that actuall…

> That is why we elect people. To answer these kinds of hard questions.

In California, its arguable that the premise of the model of government we have (as articulated in the State Constitution) is more that we elect people to exercise legislative power in the regular case not because we have other things to do on a day-to-day basis, but that the people reserve superceding legislative powers of initiative and referendum specifically because we don't think that the people we hire to deal with the day-to-day drudgery of dealing with legislation are necessarily any better or more trustworthy when it comes to answering the tough questions.

Re: I Have Read Prop F

#48

Post by thrwwy707 »

No1 wrote: post #31

I saw some campaign propaganda today. One side of the flier has a guy named Aaron Peskin imploring me to vote yes on Prop F and Prop I. Prop F is the mess thoughtfully critiqued in this write-up, Prop I is a moratorium on building new market-rate housing. Oh, and he's on the "more affordable rent" campaign platform, because if you want to make rent more affordable, clearly the best way is by preventing construction o…

>Prop I is a moratorium on building new market-rate housing

Are these people completely insane? Shouldn't there be propositions for denser zoning, land reclamation, or other measures that would increase the SF housing stock? Houston has famously lax zoning laws, and as a consequence has seen much greater population growth (31% vs 18% from 1980-2010 per wikipedia) yet experienced none of these same problems.

Re: I Have Read Prop F

#49

Post by toby »

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...

Re: I Have Read Prop F

#50

Post by noyounoyounoyou »

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…

You complain of OP being judgmental and then insult all Americans...

Anyway, that you believe another local government body making a neighborhood stabilization plan is any sort of solution at all tells me all i need to know of your cognitive powers.

Post reply on HN