Comment by anxman | Hacker News Reader

Comment by anxman | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

No need to apologize, it's precisely this double speak that Preston (and Peskin) use to advance their own political agendas at the expense of vulnerable communities here in SF. There is also a component of semi legally siphoning off public money to hand over to private developers from which said government officials take a rake, but let's ignore this portion (If you're curious though, you can read more here: https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2020/sf-city-hall-corru...).

First, in San Francisco, to qualify for "affordable housing", you have to make under the poverty line in San Francisco. That means under 110k for a family of 4. If a builder were to want to build affordable housing to help these populations, it is not financially feasible without the government paying for it b/c one would have to sell or rent this newly built housing at significantly below what they paid for it.

So then enter rich white elitists like Preston and Peskin (with ties to the real estate lobby / land owners themselves) who want to enrich themselves by increasing the value of their own land. What do they do? They block all new housing development in San Francisco so the supply is permanently depressed and gate it on building "affordable housing". They package that up as a news story in helping vulnerable communities by making a few affordable homes but in in reality, housing gets more expensive and unaffordable for everyone.

Just so a few richly compensated officials can enrich themselves even more, at the expense of the poorest residents.

To be more explicit- first they object to housing unless it is fifteen percent affordable housing. When they get that, it goes to 25 percent. Then to 50. Whatever number is needed to get the project cancelled.

It's a positive feedback loop. The higher the cost of the exactions, the more the market rate of the remaining units in a project grows to cover the price, the fewer overall projects, the greater the uproar about luxury developments.

This is really confusing for me. The author of the article seems to be making the point that affordable housing is inherently expensive and market rate is inherently cheaper. If I were to follow this line of reasoning, I’d find myself advocating for no affordable housing at all.

But then I read about the issue actually being about housing supply. I somewhat understand that this article is framed in such a way as to seem like it’s about one individual politician, but the points made here seem to be very black and white about the very concept of affordable housing.

It kind of seems that pro- and anti- affordable housing folks are accusing each other of the same thing: valuing their own property value highest.

I’m but a humble country bumpkin that grew up in affordable housing and have very little expertise about “doublespeak” but generally speaking I’ve found that when somebody makes and sells something for less, that means that the price is lower (less money required = lower cost).

Sadly, it is intentionally confusing, hence the double-speak.

The truth is that there's no such thing as conjuring up affordable housing in expensive cities at-will. Expensive housing will be built and subsidized so that it is affordable for some, but not others.

- or -

Expensive (market rate) housing will be built unsubsidized and it will compete with all other housing stock. If there is little competition, the price will not be affordable, because why would it without competition. Once there's enough housing supply, then new housing stock will be competing with existing housing, and put downward pressure on prices.

A third element at play here is that wealthier residents are able to afford housing regardless of price, so the key question existing residents must ask is: Do you want them to compete with you on a likely rent-controlled unit, or do you want them to take a look at the fancy new apartment with all the expensive amenities, and isn't rent controlled. Remember that all housing stock was once new and more expensive before it became affordable to everyone else. This isn't a comment for or against rent control but it is a factor that must be considered.

Blocking new housing unless it's "affordable" is just NIMBYism with better optics.

So they’re both NIMBYism but one is better than the other due to having poorer optics?

Just because the author brought race into it doesn't justify it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com