[PREV - MARKET_BLIND] [TOP]
BUILD_BABY_BUILD
April 21, 2014
November 8, 2021
Remember back in those innocent times, in
the mid 'teens when there was no pandemic MARKET_BLIND
on the horizon, and the net seemed full
of free market fundamentalists ready to Attention conversation: the
pile on San Francisco's left? following is mostly clipped
from comments I've made in
Those silly impractical lefties just various places online.
don't understand *supply-and-demand*.
Despite my efforts to trim
High housing costs? You know it down, it's pretty repetitious.
what that means: "Build baby, build!"
Particularly if you're a developer,
or one of the shills who love them--
or a devotee of "Econ 101-ism".
ECON-101ISM
From a discussion at reddit,
It's quite a novelty, but here with some minor later edits
I'm quoting someone I agree with: to my material ("doomvox").
old_gold_mountain wrote:
"San Francisco proper has a responsibility to build
much more densely, especially in the areas of town
that are predominantly single-family homes. Oakland
and Berkeley too, for that matter."
"But the biggest culprits in the region are our
suburbs, in my opinion."
...
"You don't need Manhattan, or even San Francisco-level
density to have a walkable, transit-oriented,
people-scaled suburban town. And you can fit far, far
more housing on our suburban land than we currently
have without even approaching the level of density
that suburban dwellers want to get away from."
BillyTenderness wrote:
"Agreed 100%. And to be clear, when we say '<city> needs to build'
nobody is actually arguing for forcibly building. People get
scared about the 'neighborhood character' changing overnight or
whatever, but if you like your single-family detached house and
you aren't selling it, nobody is going to take it away. This
would simply be permitting densification to happen in an organic
way, not mandating it."
doomvox wrote:
"That's grossly disingenuous-- if you changed the zoning
regs of say, the Mission District, you would see the place
change over night as the developers rushed to cash-in with
the cheapest and tackiest construction they can possibly
get away with--"
"A better argument would be that you can't *really* stop
the character of a neighborhood from changing with legal
hacks like rent-control and zoning restrictions-- the
best you can do is slow it down a bit, and perhaps guide
it's character somewhat."
"The choice isn't 'do nothing' or 'open the gates and let
it rip'-- you can open the gates and tighten controls on
the developers at the same time.
From comments at reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/9apulv/sf_residential_projects_languish_as_rising_costs/
(August 27, 2018)
Fistermanh wrote:
"Just stop it with the social engineering. Allow developers to
build large amounts of housing without all of the silly
restrictions and the region will become actually affordable."
doomvox wrote:
"Build baby build!"
"Update: this was sarcasm. You guys
are supposed to vote this down."
doomvox wrote:
"My worldview is that if a developer in SF says they're
not making money they are either (1) incredibly
incompetent (2) poor- mouthing to try to screw an even
better deal out of the situation."
"Another part of my worldview is that building housing is
all well and good, but people should think about the
reasons they want to live in San Francisco (TM) and think
about whether a project is going to add to those reasons
or detract from them."
jtdaugh wrote:
"Did you put streamline the development process
in there as if that's a bad thing?"
doomvox wrote:
"'Streamline' is code for 'let 'em do whatever they want'. Since
in point of fact no one, ever (outside of Texas) actually wants
to let 'em do whatever they want, this strikes me as problematic."
--------
[NEXT - ECON101]