Comments on: June 2008 Election: Propositions 98, 99 and Eminent Domain http://transbayblog.com/2008/06/02/june-2008-election-propositions-98-99-and-eminent-domain/ Transportation and urban planning in the San Francisco Bay Area Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:43:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Eric http://transbayblog.com/2008/06/02/june-2008-election-propositions-98-99-and-eminent-domain/#comment-5243 Eric Sun, 08 Jun 2008 06:06:49 +0000 http://transbay.wordpress.com/?p=430#comment-5243 Steven, two brief notes about my initial remark on rent control: (1) it was general, so I didn't especially mean to focus on San Francisco, which as you remarked is an extreme sort of market with a warped position with respect to affordability, and (2) the point of the remark was less to launch into that discussion itself (which could occupy several posts) but more to point that even if you don't like rent control, voting yes on 98 would not be a desirable way to bring about the demise of that policy, just because 98 would've opened up so many other cans of worms. The point of the post was not to emphasize rent control (which we, at least in SF/Bay Area, had heard about ad nauseum in the weeks leading up to the election), and more about 98/99's potential effects on land use planning. But you'd probably agree that a post about Prop 98 would be incomplete without touching at least briefly on rent control, so that's what that was. By the way, we're on exactly the same page when it comes to oversupply (or as close as we can get to it) and more density/high-rises in transit-rich neighborhoods and along major corridors. I wouldn't count on high-rises sprouting in the Inner Sunset or the Castro, but you can significantly increase density by adding just a few more stories. Paris manages to be much denser than San Francisco with essentially no high-rises at all, but the dense areas are consistent and uniformly spread. Steven, two brief notes about my initial remark on rent control: (1) it was general, so I didn’t especially mean to focus on San Francisco, which as you remarked is an extreme sort of market with a warped position with respect to affordability, and (2) the point of the remark was less to launch into that discussion itself (which could occupy several posts) but more to point that even if you don’t like rent control, voting yes on 98 would not be a desirable way to bring about the demise of that policy, just because 98 would’ve opened up so many other cans of worms. The point of the post was not to emphasize rent control (which we, at least in SF/Bay Area, had heard about ad nauseum in the weeks leading up to the election), and more about 98/99′s potential effects on land use planning. But you’d probably agree that a post about Prop 98 would be incomplete without touching at least briefly on rent control, so that’s what that was.

By the way, we’re on exactly the same page when it comes to oversupply (or as close as we can get to it) and more density/high-rises in transit-rich neighborhoods and along major corridors. I wouldn’t count on high-rises sprouting in the Inner Sunset or the Castro, but you can significantly increase density by adding just a few more stories. Paris manages to be much denser than San Francisco with essentially no high-rises at all, but the dense areas are consistent and uniformly spread.

]]> By: stevenj http://transbayblog.com/2008/06/02/june-2008-election-propositions-98-99-and-eminent-domain/#comment-5239 stevenj Fri, 06 Jun 2008 23:42:46 +0000 http://transbay.wordpress.com/?p=430#comment-5239 I am not a renter (any longer) but I did vote against 98, mainly because of the hidden agenda to end rent control. I'm not sure about the correlation between rent control and affordable housing in San Francisco that you think we should take a hard look at. There really is no such thing as affordable housing here - unless you have been in a rent controlled apartment for years. Or you live in a dump in a dumpy area. Or you are getting some kind of subsidy from the government like section 8. The trend these days is to build housing in highrises south of Market - none of it is rent controlled because anything constructed after 1979 is exempt. And most of it will be condos sold at the highest price possible anyway. During the height of the dot com era it was this rental exempt housing that led the way with rents going as high as the person with the most money could pay. To really have affordable housing in SF there needs to be an oversupply of units. (Visualize low to medium highrises in neighborhoods like the Castro, Inner Sunset, along Geary in the Richmond, etc). The reason low to medium highrises in the neighborhoods aren't here (yet) is because of height limits and the expense of building anything in SF. Rent control was, by the way, turned down by the voters in the late 70's possibly twice, I can't remember. The voters believed the landlord and real estate lobbies claim that SF would turn into the South Bronx if rent control were voted in. SF has turned into anything but. Rent control was enacted by the Board of Supervisors (Molinari and Renne wrote the legislation) on behalf of the senior lobby that complained they were getting thrown out on the street because of 400% rent increases by (among others) Mr Trinity Properties. When I first moved to SF in 1969 rents were pretty cheap. There were lots of empty apartments available to choose from. That pretty much ended in the 70's when SF became a really cool place to come and live -and make money. The population of SF is now about 825,000, the highest it's ever been. How do you go about convincing developers to build affordable rental housing (that is exempt from rent control) in this very expensive city? I am not a renter (any longer) but I did vote against 98, mainly because of the hidden agenda to end rent control. I’m not sure about the correlation between rent control and affordable housing in San Francisco that you think we should take a hard look at. There really is no such thing as affordable housing here – unless you have been in a rent controlled apartment for years. Or you live in a dump in a dumpy area. Or you are getting some kind of subsidy from the government like section 8. The trend these days is to build housing in highrises south of Market – none of it is rent controlled because anything constructed after 1979 is exempt. And most of it will be condos sold at the highest price possible anyway. During the height of the dot com era it was this rental exempt housing that led the way with rents going as high as the person with the most money could pay. To really have affordable housing in SF there needs to be an oversupply of units. (Visualize low to medium highrises in neighborhoods like the Castro, Inner Sunset, along Geary in the Richmond, etc). The reason low to medium highrises in the neighborhoods aren’t here (yet) is because of height limits and the expense of building anything in SF. Rent control was, by the way, turned down by the voters in the late 70′s possibly twice, I can’t remember. The voters believed the landlord and real estate lobbies claim that SF would turn into the South Bronx if rent control were voted in. SF has turned into anything but. Rent control was enacted by the Board of Supervisors (Molinari and Renne wrote the legislation) on behalf of the senior lobby that complained they were getting thrown out on the street because of 400% rent increases by (among others) Mr Trinity Properties.
When I first moved to SF in 1969 rents were pretty cheap. There were lots of empty apartments available to choose from. That pretty much ended in the 70′s when SF became a really cool place to come and live -and make money. The population of SF is now about 825,000, the highest it’s ever been. How do you go about convincing developers to build affordable rental housing (that is exempt from rent control) in this very expensive city?

]]>