Hacker News Reader

Comment by toby | Hacker News Reader

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...

View on HN

The point of the moratorium is not to affect prices; it's to give the city a chance to come up with a plan that will protect affordable housing in this one neighborhood, without losing the ability to act.

Viewed in that light, this report is a vote for the plan, not against it: it gives a little breathing room, and probably won't affect prices either way. Whether or not it "works" is entirely speculative: someone has to come up with an actual solution in the longer term.

I believe the advocates of this proposition want the city to buy the remaining vacant lots in the Mission, and use them to build affordable housing projects, but I could be wrong about that.

I understand that. It's actually addressed starting on page 26 of the report -- basic conclusion is that a landowner / developer will more likely hold the land until after the moratorium (when it will be even more valuable due to the moratorium) than develop below-market units at a lower price.

I've worked hard to understand both sides of the issue. In practice what I strongly believe will happen is that ~800 market rate units will be delayed for 18 months, nothing else will change and the politicians who pushed this won't be taken to task because they're all terming out and eyeing Sacramento.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com