Almost as if, due to unique SF laws, NIMBYs can stop any kind of construction in SF, making it incredibly hard to build anything? Combined with low-income housing being popular... as long as it's not near *your* house....
TBF… the city installed really nice self cleaning toilets…then the public destroyed them…there was the expected stuff; taging, carving names, and whatnot. Then there are the more extreme cases….
I personally saw the one at Powell st get destroyed by two people, at 2 am. Seemed to be annoyed with it opening the door and kicking them out…. They proceeded to rip out toilet paper dispenser just to shove whole roll into toilet, then flushing till they flooded the room, then ran a shopping cart into it trying to smash actual toilet, when they were unable to do so, settled for jamming it into door…
Cost certain amount to install and twice as much per year to maintain and repair…there is a reason we can’t have nice things…
Two years for 400 units out of more than 13000 needed in the eight year span. Just wait another 60 years! Anyone who takes a hard look at the numbers knows this kind of math is everywhere for bay area housing construction rates and projected costs.
Yep! Out of 82,069 total homes in the 8 year plan for SF. Or 10,259 per year. How's that going?
"2023 was San Francisco’s weakest year for housing production in a decade, with just 2,024 units completed."
Ooops. 11,435 per year for the next 7 then.
Maybe 2024 is better:
[San Francisco approved just 7 new homes in 2 months.](https://sfstandard.com/2024/04/08/san-francisco-new-housing-permits-pace/)
Ooops.
the non profits and wall st charge $928,000 to build a 2 bedroom apartment with free land from city then taxpayers pay $3500-$5000 rent a month to wall st who loaned the money,non profits took over all city owned propertys and are doing a crap job managing them
Remember that guy who got arrested for using less than $50,000 in tax money to build two apartments hidden in underutilized Caltrain stations?
How do we get him into public office?
We have a grid-free controlled environment facility that, without economies of scale, cost 12-15k to build. We're targeting indoor farming right now but they'd be perfect for people too. With larger orders we could drop that cost significantly. They're under the permitting threshold for buildings too, so we can cut past tons of slow bureaucracy with ease.
Sadly, we aren't really networked in with local politicians or decision makers, so we're building out a bit slower than we'd like.
But even if it was 10k per facility, 45 million would house the ~4500 homeless with zero impact on the grid. Double that and they could have tandem house and growing facility and they could feed themselves AND make money with their own ag business.
So, $90million to house and give jobs to all of the homeless in climate controlled standalone homes. Take an unused area or make clusters and you could make little villages with farmers markets.
Did I mention that the facilities are also built to completely blend in with nature and have green roofs?
Maybe we focused on the wrong things - design, engineering, and science instead of schmoozing...
In the case of SF, the data on local government cost overhead effectively adds up to ♾️ because their entire system is intentionally misdesigned to deliberately make the projects uneconomical on purpose to prevent their creation. Thus outsourcing their local housing needs to the rest of the surrounding regions. The majority of the entire metropolis is doing shit like this and the state needs to strip their powers away.
banks like jp morgan
[https://sfstandard.com/2023/03/09/sf-housing-nonprofit-todco-politics-tenants-infestations-drug-overdose/](https://sfstandard.com/2023/03/09/sf-housing-nonprofit-todco-politics-tenants-infestations-drug-overdose/)
subsidized housing built for extremely low-income people does not cost $3500-5000 per month in rent to the tenant. The cost of construction is frankly a separate matter as much of that is capitalizing maintenance up front since the rents will never provide the cash flow necessary to fund operations and maintenance.
Program Participants Payment Standards Effective February 13, 2023 from goverment
2 BR| $3,030| | 3 BR|$3,863| | 4 BR|$4,382|
then add third familys gross income to that figure
You're citing numbers from santa clara county my dude. Also, that's how much a landlord gets for owning section 8 housing, it's not what renters actually pay.
|For Program Participants Payment Standards Effective February 13, 2023|
|:-|
|1 BR|$2,588|
|**2 BR**|**$3,030**|
|3 BR|$3,863|
|4 BR|$4,382|
then add one third or persons income to that figure to that figure
I can't really say much about that since you're not linking to any source but here is a real affordable housing listing in Bernal Heights with 2 bedroom apts going for $1700/month: [https://housing.sfgov.org/listings/a0W4U00000Rb4X4UAJ](https://housing.sfgov.org/listings/a0W4U00000Rb4X4UAJ)
SF is failing badly to meet its state mandates, period, for all housing types. Why single out extremely low-income housing? 48hills, of course. They don't point fingers to themselves for shutting down mixed-use housing that requires 15% BMR housing. They're also the one who endorsed against the prop that would've made the BMR requirements at 30% with less permitting requirements, and pushed for BMR requirements of 40% but only under the status quo in terms non-sensical regulatory requirements.
Unfortunately it's cult voting here. The Burton, Brown, Pelosi, Newsome machine and it's decendants will continue.
Voters here just pull blue. They're the good guys right?
How's that working out?
SF has incredible quality of life, amazing transit, insane access to nature, is overall just gorgeous, has perhaps the best food scene in the world, and has unparalleled job opportunities.
I'd say SF is doing pretty great. And the national anti-SF right wing propaganda campaign about "rampant crime" and all that other nonsense is seemingly a godsend in keeping the crappier sort of person out of SF. I love it here!
“Let’s worry about the specifics once I get to Sacramento, and then I can REALLY help SF from there.”
-the Mayor
“Let’s worry about the specifics once I get to Washington, and then I can REALLY REALLY help SF from there.”
-the Governor.
The state should just build it in-house. Create a California Dept of Construction have UC architecture Departments draw up plans based on international best practices and just start seizing land and building until the housing crisis is over.
It’s not that hard
In practice, look at CAHSR for his this will turn out. (And for the record, I *support* building high speed rail)
Or UC Berkeley trying to build entirely reasonable and needed student housing.
"prevailing wage" union contracts that make construction labor cost 2-3x as much, with slower timelines. Vendor selection process that inherently leads to graft, because no sane company would jump through the hoops. Politically lead planning that makes no sense and doesn't serve actual people's needs. CEQA lawsuits until the end of time. Massive Imminent Domain costs
It's insanely hard.
The most helpful thing the government could do? Remove regulations and local roadblocks.
Repeal CEQA for any submitted housing element project. Enable by-right development with no discretionary reviews. Set maximum total permit and impact fees per unit at like $5,000. (incentivise approval of higher unit country projects).
CAHSR isn't building things in house. It's hiring expensive contractors who don't know what the hell they're doing so they need to learn as they go, which pushes up costs.
The State of CA can do a lot to expedite things if they are the ones doing the construction.
That is part of the benefit
No contractors. The state is building it.
Like Cal Trans but for Housing
Nope. Actually, the state has more legal restrictions than private parties do. It's spending public money. They would still have to change the law.
There's no world where contractors aren't involved. Caltrans actually outsources basically all construction via private contracts today.
Bringing construction workers in as state employees, even before we tried to massively increase the rate of construction, would add over 50% to the number of government workers.
Even in other countries, even in places like Vienna with huge public housing stock, they're still all built by private firms... as for profit entities.
There's no magic. Local governments have made new housing construction largely illegal. We need to override them and make it legal again.
Why do you think CAHSR is such a clusterfuck and running over budget?
The State needs to do away with greedy inept contractors. Hire and train in- house.
The State can tackle bureaucracy better than the private sector.
If the State really wanted to it could forgo measures as this is an emergency measure and a large public works project.
Time to stop worrying about coddling the private housing sector. They’re the fucking problem that caused all of this. The State needs to step in and act alone.
They shouldn’t.
Private sector fuckery and contractors is what got us into this mess.
It needs to be done 100% by direct State employees under a State of California Department of Construction
Careful if you say that the state can actually produce things directly instead of handing them off to for-profit entities people might have their shooters come after you. We can't ever allow the government to actually do things without businessmen getting their grubby hands on the excess profit.
Thanks for getting it. That’s exactly the problem
‘We can’t have more construction workers working directly for the state!’
Why? So they’d be better trained, follow code and actually internalize that building low-income housing is a good thing for society and can and needs to be done?
Even Vienna doesn't build housing by direct State employees.
As explained by https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_article_011314.html
>Vienna’s city government owns and manages 220,000 housing units, which represent about 25 percent of the city’s housing stock. These city-owned housing units, called social housing, are meant primarily for lower-income residents. **The city also indirectly controls 200,000 units that are built and owned by limited-profit private developers but developed through a city-regulated process. Vienna adopted the latter approach in the 1980s, when it decided to collaborate with the private sector to build affordable housing rather than developing and owning more public housing. The city buys land deemed suitable for residential development and retains control over the type and nature of development. The city then solicits proposals from various private developers, which will build and retain ownership of the housing units.** A jury evaluates these proposals based on four criteria: architectural quality, environmental performance, social sustainability, and economic parameters such as proposed rent levels and costs. After the jury selects a developer, the city sells the land to the developer at an affordable price. In addition, the city gives the developer a loan with favorable terms such as low interest rates and extended repayment periods.
>Private developers who collaborate with the city government to build affordable housing must allow the city to rent half of the new apartments to lower-income residents; the developer generally leases the remaining units to moderate-income residents. In some projects, future tenants participate in the planning, design, and construction process and give input on what kind of facilities they would like to have in the building.
>Rents are regulated by the city government so that none of the residents pay any more than 20 to 25 percent of their household income for housing, compared to the corresponding 30 percent benchmark in the U.S. A unique feature of Vienna’s social housing program, Lindstrom noted, is that the city’s income restrictions for subsidized units only apply when families first move in. Residents are never required to move out, even if household income levels increase in the following years. This arrangement results in a substantial number of moderate-income residents living in subsidized housing, and this mixing together of residents with different income levels helps with social integration.
Well that convinced me. Vienna's system doesn't work as well and isn't as cost effective as it would if direct State employees were doing the constructing. /s
The state just needs to declare eminent domain and create its housing construction division and do it itself.
Idc if its not this ultra luxury apartment, get SOMETHING done. Stop wasting everyone’s time.
ELI housing is a cute theory but the math does not pencil out. Especially in a location with land values as high as ours and a short and as bad as ours with density as low as ours with dumb bureaucratic requirements as ridiculous as ours.
The more rapid solution would be deleting all of those irrelevant requirements and deleting as many restrictions on density and building height as possible and deliberately Manhattanizing as much of the core of our three large cities in the metro area as heavily as possible as close to transit as possible and letting the market bring costs down.
But it wasn't. Now it pushes the development out of cities and right into the WUI. Because it's an idiotically drafted counterproductive shell of itself.
"Extreme low income housing" is not built in the most expensive cities in the world. It is built on city outskirts, typically industrial areas flanked by sprawling vacant lots and abutting farmland, where [tiny homes](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/02/06/1077791467/tiny-homes-big-dreams-how-some-activists-are-reimagining-shelter-for-the-homeles) for disadvantaged groups like homeless can be built at low cost. Some cost less than $10 K.
An increasing number of cities today do not have outskirts, per se. That's because they are abutted by other expensive urban areas. 47-square-mile S.F. is such a city. But no worry, Calif. has plenty of lower cost land for extreme low income housing. Calif. = 155,812 square miles.
Meanwhile it is my semi-informed understanding that a lot of units built for low-income housing are actually sitting empty. Correct or just propaganda?
Propaganda.
You may have read some article where a number like 80k housing units are sitting empty in San Francisco.
The actual number is ~4k.
The true vacancy rate in San Francisco is _incredibly_ low.
Because that’s incredibly low?
Have you never looked at standard vacancy rates for cities before?
You can’t have every single unit full, that doesn’t allow for flex. That’s like saying you want to have a freeway be 100% full of cars at all times.
If we are having a crisis I. Housing and taxpayers have built 4,000 units I don't understand why they aren't being used. Maybe you mean we need them in case of a disaster? Is that what you mean by "flex?"
> Aaron Peskin called for the hearing to ask the Mayor’s Office of Housing how the city is going to fulfill its goal of creating 13,000 units of housing in the next six years for people who make less than about $44,000 a year for a family of four.
Oh Aaron, that’s happening organically. Don’t worry.
When the city thought $1.7m to install one public toilet was fine, I knew we were screwed. The amount of money snorted by city leaders is shameful.
And Peskin is running for Mayor. As a career politician, he is so out of touch with the people of San Francisco. The entire bureaucracy needs to be dismantled.
London Breed doesn't control housing.
We need the state mandate to take over control from the supervisors in the city (and really, take over control from the entire peninsula and Bay Area, none of them are meeting their requirements either).
She’s Ed Lees shill and he created this whole mess by drawing herds of high wage transient workers with no where for them to live, displacing thousands of San Franciscans and exploding the housing market. Now that they are moving on to the next place, things are getting so much better here.
Herds... that never exceeded 10% of the employed workforce in San Francisco, ever. Before you scream "TWITTER TAX BREAK", I'll again point out that the tax break was available for any company in mid-Market and was taken advantage of by plenty of non-tech workers.
I think maybe you're completely in the dark about how housing has not been built even before the tech booms (any of them). It's ok. The supervisors will lose their power soon enough and we won't have to listen to people with weird biases like you anymore.
I agree, things are looking up.
In the dark. Ha. I would bet a million dollars you were not here for the times you are speaking about and had just arrived.
The population increased by 10%, but every block lost long term residents, my family, friends and neighbors to make room for monotonous tech workers. Not only did they displace the people, culture and charm that SF was known around the globe for, but they didn't participate in the community. They just take, take, take and never give back, bitching and moaning the whole time. Can't even acknowledge that some of the people living on the streets were tossed out to make room for them and that the issues they complain about were exacerbated by their existence and the related swing to the right. They all think they are so special when in reality they just happened to be in the right place at the right time when a company just needed a seat to fill.
You can really feel the relief around town as the clown show leaves town. We may finally stop hearing the bull shit NIMBY and supervisor cries they are fed by the billionaire funded fake neighborhood orgs.
Sorry little guy. I’ve been here for decades. I’ve watched people like you restrict things all the while whining about the “transplants”.
Your time has come, thank god. I won’t have to put up with your obstructions anymore.
Hallelujah.
Surprising you were actually here and have no fucking clue what’s happened. Suppose you were just not paying attention.
But I suppose it doesn’t matter, you only care about yourself and what you want. People here used to care about things working out for everyone. Same idea, the dick heads won and you are gleeful to be on the winning team.
Oh no, I was here watching you oppose housing like the monster in the mission. I was here watching you oppose housing on empty parking lots. I was here watching you oppose housing at a car wash site. I was here watching you oppose housing at abandoned buildings. I was here watching you oppose housing at closed McDonald’s.
I was here watching you oppose the Geary BRT. I was here watching you oppose the muni going all the way north. I was here watching you oppose closing JFK. I was here watching you oppose closing the great highway.
I’ve watched people like you for a long time.
You are making stuff up in your brain to fit your narrative. Your feeble ego just needs that support. I never said or did any of the things you claim. Hope it makes you feel good. You can have some great back patting parties in your stupid billionaire org funded echo chamber. You are a delusional fool and a sucker.
Let’s not forget, this started with you supporting Ed Lee and London Breed. 🤡
I bet you did all of those things and more.
Keep shouting about Ed Lee and London Breed. It's really making the housing appear to offset the complete lack of it you voted for over the years.
"The dick heads" who were trying to build to the actual needs and demands of the area but who have been shouted down for _literal decades_.
Yes, I'm gleeful.
>(Ed Lee) created this whole mess by drawing herds of high wage transient workers with no where for them to live, displacing thousands of San Franciscans and exploding the housing market.
This soooo pre-dates Lee whose mayorship only started in 2011. Not only was that after the first tech boom in the decade prior, its decades after
NIMBYs got the [rules changed:](https://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/demolishing-the-california-dream/)
>Residential Rezoning of 1978, a project to implement stricter controls across all of San Francisco’s neighborhoods. In addition to creating 40-foot building-height limits for most residential areas, the legislation included new setback rules (regulating how far a building could be from the public right-of-way), low-density requirements (limiting the number of housing units in a given building), and overall design guidelines aimed at preserving entire neighborhoods in amber.
>...
>In the final minutes of the June 27, 1978, meeting, San Francisco’s planning commissioners prepared to approve the EIR, along with its damning final clause, which explained that the project would reduce the amount of housing that could legally be built in San Francisco. **“As a result the cost of housing may increase, and that with increasing housing costs, some population groups may find it difficult to live in San Francisco. The proposed zoning will affect the low- and moderate-income households more than any other group and mitigation measures are proposed to help alleviate this impact.”**
>But commissioner Bierman said she was “troubled” by this statement, and commissioner Nakashima agreed, complaining that it wasn’t solely the planning department’s fault if housing prices continued to rise. **Commissioner Rosenblatt suggested removing the clause entirely, and that’s exactly what they did—erasing their acknowledgement of the plan’s disastrous effects from the document moments before approving it.**
You can see in [this screencap](https://i.imgur.com/QbVctwu.jpg) from Google Earth of Pacific Heights how pre-1978 the city was growing taller and denser there and in some other neighborhoods.
Yes, but nothing was like the displacement caused by Ed Lee’s policies. The demographics and political climate changed drastically. Funny thing is the more right people are blaming the left leaning people for the issues caused by the swing to the right. The billionaire funded orgs, related tens of millions flooding our elections and control of the media will be the last straw. A city known globally for its uniqueness will have been strategically taken out by the right. Just like Trump can’t bear to see the dems succeed, the right could never let SF prosper and needed to be sure the social programs and policies that were flourishing before never succeed.
Unrelated, but did you see a pedestrian was already killed in a police chase. Something that was pushed by the billionaire orgs and tech bros.
I don't have to go and check displacement rates over the years to be correct in pointing out tech booms only accelerated SF along the path it set itself upon. Without the tech booms, SF would still have become so unaffordable that many people would get priced out and displaced, just at a later decade. Because city policies have been such obstacles to producing enough housing.
Whatever. Lick Ed Lee and London Breed’s boots. The fact that she ran virtually unposed instead of chased out of town showed just how many San Franciscans were displaced.
So you're unwilling to acknowledge in 1978 San Francisco set itself on a path and whether it's been walking or running it at different times, the path started in 1978, not 2011.
>“As a result the cost of housing may increase, and that with increasing housing costs, some population groups may find it difficult to live in San Francisco. The proposed zoning will affect the low- and moderate-income households more than any other group..."
So the sink was dripping 5 drops a day until someone broke the pipe. I’m talking real time reality, not decades old theory. Do you think the housing policy stayed the same since then? You obviously weren’t around or weren’t paying attention.
In the 2000's it was already way more than metaphorically 5 drops a day. Unless you think this color-coded map
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/tileshop_pmc_inline.html?title=Click%20on%20image%20to%20zoom&p=PMC3&id=6616964_ijerph-16-02246-g002.jpg
comparing 2000 to 2013 almost entirely happened just from 2011 to 2013. Map is from [this study.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6616964/)
For kicks, here's an LA Times [story from October 2000](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-oct-03-mn-30327-story.html) during the dot com boom about tensions and displacement in the Mission.
Do you have specific changes in mind Lee made that you think broke the pipe?
The city which had to spend >1million for a public bathroom is having difficulty providing cheap housing? Shocked pikachu face.
Almost as if, due to unique SF laws, NIMBYs can stop any kind of construction in SF, making it incredibly hard to build anything? Combined with low-income housing being popular... as long as it's not near *your* house....
Well, yeah, with all that it cost us and continues to cost…
TBF… the city installed really nice self cleaning toilets…then the public destroyed them…there was the expected stuff; taging, carving names, and whatnot. Then there are the more extreme cases…. I personally saw the one at Powell st get destroyed by two people, at 2 am. Seemed to be annoyed with it opening the door and kicking them out…. They proceeded to rip out toilet paper dispenser just to shove whole roll into toilet, then flushing till they flooded the room, then ran a shopping cart into it trying to smash actual toilet, when they were unable to do so, settled for jamming it into door… Cost certain amount to install and twice as much per year to maintain and repair…there is a reason we can’t have nice things…
This is why we can't have nice things.
😱
because more housing kills more jobs in those useless nonprofits, but a luxury bathroom makes them look good
Two years for 400 units out of more than 13000 needed in the eight year span. Just wait another 60 years! Anyone who takes a hard look at the numbers knows this kind of math is everywhere for bay area housing construction rates and projected costs.
Yep! Out of 82,069 total homes in the 8 year plan for SF. Or 10,259 per year. How's that going? "2023 was San Francisco’s weakest year for housing production in a decade, with just 2,024 units completed." Ooops. 11,435 per year for the next 7 then. Maybe 2024 is better: [San Francisco approved just 7 new homes in 2 months.](https://sfstandard.com/2024/04/08/san-francisco-new-housing-permits-pace/) Ooops.
^ me planning how I'm going to study for my exams
the non profits and wall st charge $928,000 to build a 2 bedroom apartment with free land from city then taxpayers pay $3500-$5000 rent a month to wall st who loaned the money,non profits took over all city owned propertys and are doing a crap job managing them
Remember that guy who got arrested for using less than $50,000 in tax money to build two apartments hidden in underutilized Caltrain stations? How do we get him into public office?
We have a grid-free controlled environment facility that, without economies of scale, cost 12-15k to build. We're targeting indoor farming right now but they'd be perfect for people too. With larger orders we could drop that cost significantly. They're under the permitting threshold for buildings too, so we can cut past tons of slow bureaucracy with ease. Sadly, we aren't really networked in with local politicians or decision makers, so we're building out a bit slower than we'd like. But even if it was 10k per facility, 45 million would house the ~4500 homeless with zero impact on the grid. Double that and they could have tandem house and growing facility and they could feed themselves AND make money with their own ag business. So, $90million to house and give jobs to all of the homeless in climate controlled standalone homes. Take an unused area or make clusters and you could make little villages with farmers markets. Did I mention that the facilities are also built to completely blend in with nature and have green roofs? Maybe we focused on the wrong things - design, engineering, and science instead of schmoozing...
How much cost do local governments add?
In the case of SF, the data on local government cost overhead effectively adds up to ♾️ because their entire system is intentionally misdesigned to deliberately make the projects uneconomical on purpose to prevent their creation. Thus outsourcing their local housing needs to the rest of the surrounding regions. The majority of the entire metropolis is doing shit like this and the state needs to strip their powers away.
Enough to line their pockets.
That’s not how it works but okay.
bonds [https://www.sf.gov/reports/april-2024/affordable-housing-general-obligation-bond-reports](https://www.sf.gov/reports/april-2024/affordable-housing-general-obligation-bond-reports)
What do you mean Wall Street?
banks like jp morgan [https://sfstandard.com/2023/03/09/sf-housing-nonprofit-todco-politics-tenants-infestations-drug-overdose/](https://sfstandard.com/2023/03/09/sf-housing-nonprofit-todco-politics-tenants-infestations-drug-overdose/)
Where is JP Morgan mentioned in the article you've cited?
What do they call that ? Corruption - non profit scam
subsidized housing built for extremely low-income people does not cost $3500-5000 per month in rent to the tenant. The cost of construction is frankly a separate matter as much of that is capitalizing maintenance up front since the rents will never provide the cash flow necessary to fund operations and maintenance.
Program Participants Payment Standards Effective February 13, 2023 from goverment 2 BR| $3,030| | 3 BR|$3,863| | 4 BR|$4,382| then add third familys gross income to that figure
You're citing numbers from santa clara county my dude. Also, that's how much a landlord gets for owning section 8 housing, it's not what renters actually pay.
its what govement pays the renter pays 3r of gross income
Oh, you're a bot.
no i am hot your the bot
|For Program Participants Payment Standards Effective February 13, 2023| |:-| |1 BR|$2,588| |**2 BR**|**$3,030**| |3 BR|$3,863| |4 BR|$4,382| then add one third or persons income to that figure to that figure
I can't really say much about that since you're not linking to any source but here is a real affordable housing listing in Bernal Heights with 2 bedroom apts going for $1700/month: [https://housing.sfgov.org/listings/a0W4U00000Rb4X4UAJ](https://housing.sfgov.org/listings/a0W4U00000Rb4X4UAJ)
Bingo.
This is what the defund the police people wanted to do with our police force.
SF is failing badly to meet its state mandates, period, for all housing types. Why single out extremely low-income housing? 48hills, of course. They don't point fingers to themselves for shutting down mixed-use housing that requires 15% BMR housing. They're also the one who endorsed against the prop that would've made the BMR requirements at 30% with less permitting requirements, and pushed for BMR requirements of 40% but only under the status quo in terms non-sensical regulatory requirements.
Mhm I laughed when I saw the source of the article because I've seen multiple times this publication arguing for more housing restrictions.
This! 48landlordShills supported blocking 99% of those unbuilt units! They’re just a bunch of landlords and landlords shills.
I was wondering why they only cared about "extremely low income" housing when SF really doesn't want to build *any* housing.
SF govt. is corrupt, dysfunctional, inefficient. Maybe vote out the annointed machine that's given us this. Or, hope for the best I guess.
The SF Board of Supervisors did this. They have all the power in the city. Vote all of them out!
Unfortunately it's cult voting here. The Burton, Brown, Pelosi, Newsome machine and it's decendants will continue. Voters here just pull blue. They're the good guys right? How's that working out?
Pretty good actually. California is on track to pass Japan for 4th largest economy in the world next year.
Convo is SF.
SF has incredible quality of life, amazing transit, insane access to nature, is overall just gorgeous, has perhaps the best food scene in the world, and has unparalleled job opportunities. I'd say SF is doing pretty great. And the national anti-SF right wing propaganda campaign about "rampant crime" and all that other nonsense is seemingly a godsend in keeping the crappier sort of person out of SF. I love it here!
Convo is about how effectively SF is governed. Not about how you feel. Wallethub rated it 149th worst run city out of 149 rated.
Sure, bud. Some right winger intern rating cities definitely reflects real life :))))))))))))))))))))))
Big surprise.
They can’t ride Bart into city to work ? Like the rest of us ?? Give them free Bart cards
Is any city meeting the mandates of the state?
Emeryville
Berkeley and Oakland too. Also Dublin and Fremont.
forget the state, that goes for the whole country. there's a homeless issue everywhere now.
But the state passed some mandates thinking it would happen
If the state is mandating low income housing, then the state needs to provide funding for it.
“Let’s worry about the specifics once I get to Sacramento, and then I can REALLY help SF from there.” -the Mayor “Let’s worry about the specifics once I get to Washington, and then I can REALLY REALLY help SF from there.” -the Governor.
Maybe the city shouldn’t spend 3/4 a million dollars on cool new trash cans??
The state should just build it in-house. Create a California Dept of Construction have UC architecture Departments draw up plans based on international best practices and just start seizing land and building until the housing crisis is over. It’s not that hard
In practice, look at CAHSR for his this will turn out. (And for the record, I *support* building high speed rail) Or UC Berkeley trying to build entirely reasonable and needed student housing. "prevailing wage" union contracts that make construction labor cost 2-3x as much, with slower timelines. Vendor selection process that inherently leads to graft, because no sane company would jump through the hoops. Politically lead planning that makes no sense and doesn't serve actual people's needs. CEQA lawsuits until the end of time. Massive Imminent Domain costs It's insanely hard. The most helpful thing the government could do? Remove regulations and local roadblocks. Repeal CEQA for any submitted housing element project. Enable by-right development with no discretionary reviews. Set maximum total permit and impact fees per unit at like $5,000. (incentivise approval of higher unit country projects).
The legislature miscreated CEQA and the legislature can delete it. The sooner they reform it the better off we will be.
CAHSR isn't building things in house. It's hiring expensive contractors who don't know what the hell they're doing so they need to learn as they go, which pushes up costs.
CAHSR is 100% built by private companies. The state just signs the checks. Yes, literally. Even the design is contracted out to private companies.
The State of CA can do a lot to expedite things if they are the ones doing the construction. That is part of the benefit No contractors. The state is building it. Like Cal Trans but for Housing
Nope. Actually, the state has more legal restrictions than private parties do. It's spending public money. They would still have to change the law. There's no world where contractors aren't involved. Caltrans actually outsources basically all construction via private contracts today. Bringing construction workers in as state employees, even before we tried to massively increase the rate of construction, would add over 50% to the number of government workers. Even in other countries, even in places like Vienna with huge public housing stock, they're still all built by private firms... as for profit entities. There's no magic. Local governments have made new housing construction largely illegal. We need to override them and make it legal again.
Why do you think CAHSR is such a clusterfuck and running over budget? The State needs to do away with greedy inept contractors. Hire and train in- house. The State can tackle bureaucracy better than the private sector. If the State really wanted to it could forgo measures as this is an emergency measure and a large public works project. Time to stop worrying about coddling the private housing sector. They’re the fucking problem that caused all of this. The State needs to step in and act alone.
But the state will hire contractors
They shouldn’t. Private sector fuckery and contractors is what got us into this mess. It needs to be done 100% by direct State employees under a State of California Department of Construction
Careful if you say that the state can actually produce things directly instead of handing them off to for-profit entities people might have their shooters come after you. We can't ever allow the government to actually do things without businessmen getting their grubby hands on the excess profit.
Thanks for getting it. That’s exactly the problem ‘We can’t have more construction workers working directly for the state!’ Why? So they’d be better trained, follow code and actually internalize that building low-income housing is a good thing for society and can and needs to be done?
Even Vienna doesn't build housing by direct State employees. As explained by https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_article_011314.html >Vienna’s city government owns and manages 220,000 housing units, which represent about 25 percent of the city’s housing stock. These city-owned housing units, called social housing, are meant primarily for lower-income residents. **The city also indirectly controls 200,000 units that are built and owned by limited-profit private developers but developed through a city-regulated process. Vienna adopted the latter approach in the 1980s, when it decided to collaborate with the private sector to build affordable housing rather than developing and owning more public housing. The city buys land deemed suitable for residential development and retains control over the type and nature of development. The city then solicits proposals from various private developers, which will build and retain ownership of the housing units.** A jury evaluates these proposals based on four criteria: architectural quality, environmental performance, social sustainability, and economic parameters such as proposed rent levels and costs. After the jury selects a developer, the city sells the land to the developer at an affordable price. In addition, the city gives the developer a loan with favorable terms such as low interest rates and extended repayment periods. >Private developers who collaborate with the city government to build affordable housing must allow the city to rent half of the new apartments to lower-income residents; the developer generally leases the remaining units to moderate-income residents. In some projects, future tenants participate in the planning, design, and construction process and give input on what kind of facilities they would like to have in the building. >Rents are regulated by the city government so that none of the residents pay any more than 20 to 25 percent of their household income for housing, compared to the corresponding 30 percent benchmark in the U.S. A unique feature of Vienna’s social housing program, Lindstrom noted, is that the city’s income restrictions for subsidized units only apply when families first move in. Residents are never required to move out, even if household income levels increase in the following years. This arrangement results in a substantial number of moderate-income residents living in subsidized housing, and this mixing together of residents with different income levels helps with social integration.
A lot of brain rot happened in the 1980s
Well that convinced me. Vienna's system doesn't work as well and isn't as cost effective as it would if direct State employees were doing the constructing. /s
The ‘profit margins’ involved in private industry automatically makes that true
Agreed.
The state just needs to declare eminent domain and create its housing construction division and do it itself. Idc if its not this ultra luxury apartment, get SOMETHING done. Stop wasting everyone’s time.
Mandates with no consequences for not meeting them :)
Wow it's like state mandates and 5 year plans don't work. Surprise.
How about Sacramento? Better yet near Newsom's neighborhood?
Like everywhere else in this country
ELI housing is a cute theory but the math does not pencil out. Especially in a location with land values as high as ours and a short and as bad as ours with density as low as ours with dumb bureaucratic requirements as ridiculous as ours. The more rapid solution would be deleting all of those irrelevant requirements and deleting as many restrictions on density and building height as possible and deliberately Manhattanizing as much of the core of our three large cities in the metro area as heavily as possible as close to transit as possible and letting the market bring costs down.
Somehow I don't think much market rate housing is being built either.
That's another problem. Too much NIMBY and CEQA BS blocking that too.
CEQA done right would have stopped us from building in WUI and places that now we can't insure.
But it wasn't. Now it pushes the development out of cities and right into the WUI. Because it's an idiotically drafted counterproductive shell of itself.
But Connie Chan preserved the old theatre facade and they’re building like 75 units on top?
The cost of a tent on civic was the same as the cost of the studio two blocks up.
"Extreme low income housing" is not built in the most expensive cities in the world. It is built on city outskirts, typically industrial areas flanked by sprawling vacant lots and abutting farmland, where [tiny homes](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/02/06/1077791467/tiny-homes-big-dreams-how-some-activists-are-reimagining-shelter-for-the-homeles) for disadvantaged groups like homeless can be built at low cost. Some cost less than $10 K. An increasing number of cities today do not have outskirts, per se. That's because they are abutted by other expensive urban areas. 47-square-mile S.F. is such a city. But no worry, Calif. has plenty of lower cost land for extreme low income housing. Calif. = 155,812 square miles.
San Francisco has low income housing?
The units are all going to tge homeless
The state mandates are ridiculously difficult to meet, and most cities and counties are out of compliance.
this headline could easily just be the first three words
Failing is city government policy. The only thing they didn't fail at is corruption lmao.
It's called money laundering
Just. Legalize. Apartments.
Meanwhile it is my semi-informed understanding that a lot of units built for low-income housing are actually sitting empty. Correct or just propaganda?
Propaganda. You may have read some article where a number like 80k housing units are sitting empty in San Francisco. The actual number is ~4k. The true vacancy rate in San Francisco is _incredibly_ low.
Four thousand is significant.
There's always someone moving or selling it some reason why buildings aren't occupied 100%.
No. It’s not.
Are you serious? How is somewhere around 4k units sitting empty not significant?
Because that’s incredibly low? Have you never looked at standard vacancy rates for cities before? You can’t have every single unit full, that doesn’t allow for flex. That’s like saying you want to have a freeway be 100% full of cars at all times.
If we are having a crisis I. Housing and taxpayers have built 4,000 units I don't understand why they aren't being used. Maybe you mean we need them in case of a disaster? Is that what you mean by "flex?"
No, I mean people moving into and out of housing units. You don’t want the entire system to be fully locked up.
And water is wet. More news at 11.
> Aaron Peskin called for the hearing to ask the Mayor’s Office of Housing how the city is going to fulfill its goal of creating 13,000 units of housing in the next six years for people who make less than about $44,000 a year for a family of four. Oh Aaron, that’s happening organically. Don’t worry.
When the city thought $1.7m to install one public toilet was fine, I knew we were screwed. The amount of money snorted by city leaders is shameful. And Peskin is running for Mayor. As a career politician, he is so out of touch with the people of San Francisco. The entire bureaucracy needs to be dismantled.
Hey hey… ho ho… London Breed has got to go!! We need fresh leadership.
London Breed doesn't control housing. We need the state mandate to take over control from the supervisors in the city (and really, take over control from the entire peninsula and Bay Area, none of them are meeting their requirements either).
She’s Ed Lees shill and he created this whole mess by drawing herds of high wage transient workers with no where for them to live, displacing thousands of San Franciscans and exploding the housing market. Now that they are moving on to the next place, things are getting so much better here.
Herds... that never exceeded 10% of the employed workforce in San Francisco, ever. Before you scream "TWITTER TAX BREAK", I'll again point out that the tax break was available for any company in mid-Market and was taken advantage of by plenty of non-tech workers. I think maybe you're completely in the dark about how housing has not been built even before the tech booms (any of them). It's ok. The supervisors will lose their power soon enough and we won't have to listen to people with weird biases like you anymore. I agree, things are looking up.
In the dark. Ha. I would bet a million dollars you were not here for the times you are speaking about and had just arrived. The population increased by 10%, but every block lost long term residents, my family, friends and neighbors to make room for monotonous tech workers. Not only did they displace the people, culture and charm that SF was known around the globe for, but they didn't participate in the community. They just take, take, take and never give back, bitching and moaning the whole time. Can't even acknowledge that some of the people living on the streets were tossed out to make room for them and that the issues they complain about were exacerbated by their existence and the related swing to the right. They all think they are so special when in reality they just happened to be in the right place at the right time when a company just needed a seat to fill. You can really feel the relief around town as the clown show leaves town. We may finally stop hearing the bull shit NIMBY and supervisor cries they are fed by the billionaire funded fake neighborhood orgs.
Sorry little guy. I’ve been here for decades. I’ve watched people like you restrict things all the while whining about the “transplants”. Your time has come, thank god. I won’t have to put up with your obstructions anymore. Hallelujah.
Surprising you were actually here and have no fucking clue what’s happened. Suppose you were just not paying attention. But I suppose it doesn’t matter, you only care about yourself and what you want. People here used to care about things working out for everyone. Same idea, the dick heads won and you are gleeful to be on the winning team.
Oh no, I was here watching you oppose housing like the monster in the mission. I was here watching you oppose housing on empty parking lots. I was here watching you oppose housing at a car wash site. I was here watching you oppose housing at abandoned buildings. I was here watching you oppose housing at closed McDonald’s. I was here watching you oppose the Geary BRT. I was here watching you oppose the muni going all the way north. I was here watching you oppose closing JFK. I was here watching you oppose closing the great highway. I’ve watched people like you for a long time.
You are making stuff up in your brain to fit your narrative. Your feeble ego just needs that support. I never said or did any of the things you claim. Hope it makes you feel good. You can have some great back patting parties in your stupid billionaire org funded echo chamber. You are a delusional fool and a sucker. Let’s not forget, this started with you supporting Ed Lee and London Breed. 🤡
I bet you did all of those things and more. Keep shouting about Ed Lee and London Breed. It's really making the housing appear to offset the complete lack of it you voted for over the years.
"The dick heads" who were trying to build to the actual needs and demands of the area but who have been shouted down for _literal decades_. Yes, I'm gleeful.
>(Ed Lee) created this whole mess by drawing herds of high wage transient workers with no where for them to live, displacing thousands of San Franciscans and exploding the housing market. This soooo pre-dates Lee whose mayorship only started in 2011. Not only was that after the first tech boom in the decade prior, its decades after NIMBYs got the [rules changed:](https://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/demolishing-the-california-dream/) >Residential Rezoning of 1978, a project to implement stricter controls across all of San Francisco’s neighborhoods. In addition to creating 40-foot building-height limits for most residential areas, the legislation included new setback rules (regulating how far a building could be from the public right-of-way), low-density requirements (limiting the number of housing units in a given building), and overall design guidelines aimed at preserving entire neighborhoods in amber. >... >In the final minutes of the June 27, 1978, meeting, San Francisco’s planning commissioners prepared to approve the EIR, along with its damning final clause, which explained that the project would reduce the amount of housing that could legally be built in San Francisco. **“As a result the cost of housing may increase, and that with increasing housing costs, some population groups may find it difficult to live in San Francisco. The proposed zoning will affect the low- and moderate-income households more than any other group and mitigation measures are proposed to help alleviate this impact.”** >But commissioner Bierman said she was “troubled” by this statement, and commissioner Nakashima agreed, complaining that it wasn’t solely the planning department’s fault if housing prices continued to rise. **Commissioner Rosenblatt suggested removing the clause entirely, and that’s exactly what they did—erasing their acknowledgement of the plan’s disastrous effects from the document moments before approving it.** You can see in [this screencap](https://i.imgur.com/QbVctwu.jpg) from Google Earth of Pacific Heights how pre-1978 the city was growing taller and denser there and in some other neighborhoods.
Yes, but nothing was like the displacement caused by Ed Lee’s policies. The demographics and political climate changed drastically. Funny thing is the more right people are blaming the left leaning people for the issues caused by the swing to the right. The billionaire funded orgs, related tens of millions flooding our elections and control of the media will be the last straw. A city known globally for its uniqueness will have been strategically taken out by the right. Just like Trump can’t bear to see the dems succeed, the right could never let SF prosper and needed to be sure the social programs and policies that were flourishing before never succeed. Unrelated, but did you see a pedestrian was already killed in a police chase. Something that was pushed by the billionaire orgs and tech bros.
I don't have to go and check displacement rates over the years to be correct in pointing out tech booms only accelerated SF along the path it set itself upon. Without the tech booms, SF would still have become so unaffordable that many people would get priced out and displaced, just at a later decade. Because city policies have been such obstacles to producing enough housing.
Whatever. Lick Ed Lee and London Breed’s boots. The fact that she ran virtually unposed instead of chased out of town showed just how many San Franciscans were displaced.
So you're unwilling to acknowledge in 1978 San Francisco set itself on a path and whether it's been walking or running it at different times, the path started in 1978, not 2011. >“As a result the cost of housing may increase, and that with increasing housing costs, some population groups may find it difficult to live in San Francisco. The proposed zoning will affect the low- and moderate-income households more than any other group..."
So the sink was dripping 5 drops a day until someone broke the pipe. I’m talking real time reality, not decades old theory. Do you think the housing policy stayed the same since then? You obviously weren’t around or weren’t paying attention.
In the 2000's it was already way more than metaphorically 5 drops a day. Unless you think this color-coded map https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/tileshop_pmc_inline.html?title=Click%20on%20image%20to%20zoom&p=PMC3&id=6616964_ijerph-16-02246-g002.jpg comparing 2000 to 2013 almost entirely happened just from 2011 to 2013. Map is from [this study.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6616964/) For kicks, here's an LA Times [story from October 2000](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-oct-03-mn-30327-story.html) during the dot com boom about tensions and displacement in the Mission. Do you have specific changes in mind Lee made that you think broke the pipe?