FYI: When someone uses the term “YIMBY” all I hear is “LANDLORD” and I don’t think I am alone.
Landlords want to maximize profit from their property and when demand is soaring above supply, adding units is the way to do that so they are organizing to overturn laws that prevent them from doing so.
There is a reason the tickets to this event cost $100+. This isn’t a working class movement lol.
You are either stupid yourself or you’ve got a lot of nerve to act like others are, which is to say you certainly act like a landlord.
You're saying that as supply catches up to the soaring demand, profits will go up instead of down?
There's a lot of name-calling in your post and not a lot of sense.
If I owned a block of single family houses in Frisco I’d want to be able to turn my block to a giant apartment complex at the same time I’d want to prevent anyone else doing a similar thing.
Then my profit goes up and isn’t endangered.
I don't think you're wrong on the larger point that landlords are more likely to be on the side of NIMBYism / NIMBYs are going to be land owners.
But, to an extent this is possible; the price would drop for the additional supply, but the total of (now_higher_supply * now_lower_price) can still be greater than (original_lower_supply * original_higher_price). Depends on how the market demand responds to the additional supply, and how much additional supply there is. (It can happen the other way, too, where the drop in price outweighs the new profit from the new supply, and total profit drops.)
… so it kinda requires an idea of how the additional supply would cause the price to change, beyond what I suspect most landlords have. And a foresight/long-termism that I also don't think exists. And if you're a small time landlord not planning on building additional properties, then your supply is always 1, and if the price does down, obviously then too the product does. And I think in SF, the additional supply that is needed, from a more moral standpoint of "people need to live, commuting is bad for the environment and people's health", is crap tons of additional housing. The price to rent could halve and still be too high.
In other words, different landlords with different plans, assets, and resources will act differently. Even if the collective landlords of SF did somehow lose profit from NIMBYism’s rise, some of them will stand to gain a lot and I’d bet on landlords at this NIMBY Prom event standing to gain a lot.
Even in SF, that's not really the group whose mind the movement is intending to change. That's the group whose dominant historical grip on the left they're determined to dislodge, because of its harmful effect on San Francisco's progressive program.
Fundraising events are pretty common in this kind of environment: if it was landlord driven, i'd imagine the tickets would be more in the thousands, as that's common for traditional for party political fundraisers in US cities, where you are paying for access. I'd compare it to, say, the Harvey Milk Club Gayla, whose prices you can see here: https://www.milkclub.org/gayla
What part of that is hard for people to understand?