San Francisco Examiner/Brendan P. Bartholomew, 12/20/15. "Rent protection discussions making waves in Pacifica."
 |
| In this Country, everyone should have the ability to survive. |
| Plenty of room to build housing in this City. How about building affordable, public housing on some of our Federal open space land? |
Daniel Saver, a housing attorney for Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, had previously predicted the waves of mass evictions, currently affecting cities like San Mateo and Redwood City, would soon move north and create crises in towns like Pacifica and Daly City.
.... Saver said his organization has begun handling another case in Pacifica, involving a building in Sharp Park whose tenants received 60-day eviction notices the day before Thanksgiving. Two of the units have already been converted to short-term vacation rentals, Saver said, and tenants believe the landlord plans to convert the remaining units to Airbnb inventory.
The alternative to rent stabilization that was added to the session agenda, upsetting some attendees, was the so-called Healdsburg model. .... Those who claim the addition of the Healdsburg model was an attempt to derail the rent stabilization discussion are mistaken, according to Pacifica City Manager Lorie Tinfow. She said four council members had previously expressed concerns about adopting rent stabilization, and staff made a good-faith effort to address the council’s desire to learn about possible alternatives." Read article.
Related, prior Study Session. Fix Pacifica reprint, City of Pacifica/City Council Rent Stabilization Study Session Agenda, 12/5/15.
Note photograph from BTV, NY HD, 1:36 minutes. Jimmy McMillan, "The Rent is Too Dam High Party." Remix YouTube, 1:46 minutes, (brief Simply Orange commercial prior). Related. Debate for Governor You Tube, 50 seconds. Public Housing by Sarah Dorio, Village Green from Pitchengine/Lord Aech Sargent, (Urban design architectural and design firm)" New apartment homes prove public housing can be sustainably designed."
Posted by Kathy Meeh
22 comments:
Former Mayor Irvin gives eloquent statements of "Getting it" on renters plight,but votes against anything that would help them.Mike O'Neil is in real estate and will vote no,for sure.Does the community want to stop market based abuses or leave people to wolves.The country,in past,has had controls to break the cycle.Pacifica Council has the power,also.
Many of the people who are most enthusiastic about rent control are the ones who fight new housing every chance they get. If they want to know who to blame, they should look in a mirror.
Amen Mr. Sinai Amen.
The implied expectation of rent control proponents is to ensure shortage of housing supply.
When rent control is instituted, it creates an incentive for the current tenant to "stay put". As economy graduates and demand for housing goes up, rent control tenancies don't show up on the market. The result is higher rents for those properties not under rent control and by extension higher housing prices.
But then, the rent control proponents turn around and discourage newer development since "rent control" policies are already in place. And further contributing to housing shortage.
This happens a lot in SF.
Seems like the rent control proponents like to point out Karen owns a rental and Mike is a real estate licensee. Well, someone may want to put dear Sue Digre under the same microscope. They may be not so pleasantly surprised at what a conflict really looks like.
It seems that under Fair Political Practices Law a complaint can be filed against each individual with conflict of interest.It happens to a lot of public figures.
Yeah, 840, you do that. And then those who support rent control, affordable and low-income housing would say we need heroes who walk the walk to govern right along side those who derive income. Watch what the county does on the issue of trailer parks. Council is watching.
Charles Dickens would put Scrooge as apartment owner kicking people into cold on Christmas!
Former Mayor Irvin gives eloquent statements of "Getting it" on renters plight,but votes against anything that would help them.
Who is Mayor Irvin?
718, really? Which votes are you talking about?
Didn't you make the same comment 12/24, 10:26 am (first comment above)?
Didn't all City Council and our City Manager help the month-to-month mobile home tenants?
Didn't City Council vote to hold, and held, a study session regarding rent stabilization and affordable housing? Aren't more of these issues coming up in the future?
And the question is Anonymous, Who are you?
Kathy
7:18 was asking who is Irvin?
Karen's name is Ervin.
Unless Michael Irvin of the Cowboy was Pacifica Mayor.
948, well true. 718 and 12/24, 10:26 am doesn't recognize the difference between the last name Ervin or Irvin, an understandable error.
But, my concern is much more the unfair, sloppy, targeted message from that "Anonymous".
I,1026,targeted Mayor Ervin,because she personally challenged John Keener's right to agendize renters plight and ,as on, video asked City Manager to see what could be done.The result: ill fated agendizing proposal,that she had to vote against,because of massive council meeting protest..Emergency just cause eviction: She and Mike O'Neal,on video,voted NO.They did not want any further discussion.
Study session: Could not kill anymore,John Keener's efforts to agendize rent stabilization,because 5hrs renters pleas.Political repercussion possible.Put poison pill,self-policing joke,alternative to rent stabilization,as option.
City Manager,made what I call "a memorandum of understanding" with Pacific Skies Estates, not with each resident.I would like to see $15,000 guarantee without protest disclaimer.Legal status:compromised by intimidation.
San Mateo County issued mobile park moratorium just like John Keener!
Karen has great compassion,and needs to put it in action!
Anonymous because affilations.
Although peeps like Keener are excellent at proposing the "feel good" stuff, those of us who actually want to "do good" know that only a strict adherence to the principles of supply and demand will ultimately help the renter. Yes, we must significantly increase the supply of rental units in order to really see competitive pricing and the desired result. And to increase that supply, we must make it more attractive for potential investors to put their investment capital into rental units rather than the stock market, condos, gold futures, etc. Now here is the part that is going to upset those of you who want it both ways, i.e., a surplus of low cost rentals and strict adherence to strong environmental concerns, policies and regulations. Stop the frog, snake, plover and other extreme protection nonsense. There are NO critical habitat designations (by USFWS)in Pacifica for these creatures. And stop giving away precious land to the GGNRA et al. For God's sake man, humans need habitat too!
Just curious. After reading 853 I've questions for our real estate experts...How many new rental units would it take to see competitive pricing? And since competitive pricing does not necessarily mean lower rents (we have competitive pricing right now), how many new rental units would we need to have lower rents? Absent a downturn in the Bay Area economy, specifically the job market, can simply having more supply create lower rents? Any examples of where that works in an area with high employment? What usually happens is the economy burps, the job market softens and rents go down a little. Seems to me that when you build more market rate rentals, they rent at market rate. They do not magically become affordable housing and do not address the shortage of affordable housing. Handy to pretend it's all the same issue, but is it? BTW, looking for something with more thought than the generic "supply and demand" mantra that gets trotted out so often. I'm not opposed to new housing of any type in Pacifica, but, in this time and place, I find the idea that more somehow translates to affordable, just a little too convenient.
853 If you are asking, "How many new rental units would it take to see competitive pricing?" and then, in the very next sentence stating, "we have competitive pricing right now", it would seem you answered your own question.
1244 To clarify for you, it's my opinion that we have competitive pricing right now, but clearly that isn't what 853 thinks, so my question to him/you stands. I'm not playing "gotcha". I'd like 853/you to explain how more supply, in this time and place, would create lower rents. How many units of new housing do you think would create those lower rents? Has that happened elsewhere? Further, how would construction of more housing units for the market rate sector address the shortage of income-based affordable housing? I have no problem with more housing because we either grow or die, but I question 853's reasoning.
Since some of you can't understand basic supply and demand, here's an article that clearly lays out why it's the NIMBYs who are causing the housing crisis in SF (and by extension here in Pacifica). Even though they always try and blame the techies, it's clear that their naïve opposition to new housing is what's actually causing the ridiculous increases in housing costs.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/san-francisco-is-confused-about-the-villain-thats-making-it-unaffordable/422091/
Ah, don't worry 224. It's just a temporary problem. But knock yourself out using it as ammo in your crusade. Boom and bust.
427 and 454, I understand Skyline offers some introductory Econ courses for cheap. Perhaps you should consider investing some of your public sector pension windfall in a class or two so you can keep up with the conversation here. Otherwise, try Goggling "supply and demand". There are some extremely elementary discussions on the topic that even you should be able to follow.
902 Of course. You and Skyline. That connection is no surprise. Immmmpressive!
Build more and watch rents go down? Where has that worked? How many units would it take? It's an unrealistic and completely disingenuous argument that is all about the money to be made and not about creating affordable housing. Nothing wrong with making money, but don't piggy-back your argument on the affordable housing issue. The only kind of new housing that will lower rents is affordable or low-income housing and then only for those who qualify. Anything else gets rented at market rate. It's market rate housing that gets built because that's where the money is. As long as the SF housing market is super-heated, Pacifica will feel the heat. And that's great, but some people will not be able to afford to live here. If that genuinely bothers you, join the affordable housing activists to pressure the city to make restricted affordable and even low-income housing a priority. Lotsa luck. Shall we keep our fingers crossed for another economic downturn with sustained job losses in the tech sector? That'll cool things off. Whadda ya think? Rent freeze or rollback?
Post a Comment