SFBARF's Slideshow Reveals their Divide-And-Conquer Aspirations : Indybay

[Matt Thrailkill]

https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/10/21/18779146.php

[Mike Schiraldi]

I don't remember this presentation; does anyone have a link?

I thought we were officially rent-control neutral, and that the
*actual* alliance we're trying to sever is the one between genuine
progressives and the wealthy landowners who deceive them into
believing that underbuilding helps the less-fortunate.

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Matt Thrailkill <ma...@thrailkill.org> wrote:
> https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/10/21/18779146.php
>
> --
> This list too heavy for you? Join the ANNOUNCEMENTS ONLY list:
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sfbarentersfed-announce and
> unsubscribe from this list. Instructions immediately below \/ \/ \/
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "SFBA Renters Federation" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to SFBArentersfe...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAJBNQDGi-Acvz0Urvqbn-0XO%3DxSt9KQvWkd5h51RApaiABCcJQ%40mail.gmail.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Rafael Solari]

The rest of the deck is here:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1EP6SUj-4bGN00x2SDsz8pUPWSjTxBDvf7YORr7ZSrEw/mobilepresent?slide=id.p

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAHGvtgPdQSjC3g98o2%2Bxnhny%3DpCPy1YwKufBGuX%2BzpcPDu7CQQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Randall Leeds]

Lol, Sonja, when I read the Machiavelli quote the first time I was like, "Oh, shit, most people lack the nuance and attention to understand there was anything more than 'ends justify the means' why, oh why, did you bring this up?"

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAKOu3PcU6HKRMGfN6yDbv5yk7jPjex1crQgevfMo%3DXF%2BCkQZeQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Randall Leeds]

Annnnnd I'm mixing up my quotes. I was thinking "feared > loved". Sigh.

[Mike Schiraldi]

If I'm reading Slide 8 of that presentation right, it looks like the
cherrypicked quote is just an unfortunate out-of-context
misrepresentation. The four stakeholders seem to be:

SFBARF: Neutral on rent control, in favor of building

Landowners: Neutral on rent control, against building

Rent-controlled renters: In favor of rent control, neutral on building

Non-rent-controlled renters: Against rent control, neutral on building

...and the point seemed to be that Group 2 and Group 3 have nothing in
common, and yet Group 3 chose to align that way, whereas they could be
allied with us just as easily.

[Sonja Trauss]

I made this almost a year ago, in December. At the time you can see I still had  a hazy idea of the relationship between mission inc types and straight NIMBYs. It looks like I have them completely conflated. 

Finally people are reading the website. That's been on there in the "about" section for 6 months. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAHGvtgNaTBqpyuuJxLCsHqj3Eq87Wg5c%2BC5ibsvjWabj7BF5Fw%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Sent from a pocket computer

[Donald Dewsnup]

I love it "natural affordable housing"

[Mike Schiraldi]

See also: Affordable by Design

[Starchild]

Natural affordable housing? :-)

[Tim McCormick]

While I generally support the strategies it describes, the term "Affordable by design" is problematic as a complement/alternative to regulated affordable. That's because it implies, as the fallacious SPUR article linked to (http://www.spur.org/publications/spur-report/2007-11-20/affordable-design) that for housing to be affordable it must built or regulated as such.

In fact, most affordable housing is neither: it's simply older, in a declined or now less desirable place, next to the noisy freeway that got put in, lacking in newer amenities, in a worse school district or now-higher-crime area, etc etc. For a hundred possible reasons, it's less desired than other housing, so priced less. It's quite normal for housing to serve varied socio-economic levels over time, not just who it may hqve originally been built or marketed for.

 If supply is relative unconstrained, over time producers keep adding supply along the demand curve until it approaches the cost of production, ie where it becomes no longer economically viable to produce more.

Of course you won't find this model plausible if you believe: demand is infinite; or supply not significantly expandable (eg "built out"); and/or costs even after depreciation can never be brought down to a level affordable to most people.  I think some combination of those is what's believed by most proponents who focus on regulated affordable rather than overall housing supply. Each can examined.

On Friday, October 23, 2015, Mike Schiraldi <mi...@schiraldi.org> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAHGvtgMEaOimcVF2yqdRkY0rVa%2BqEpqcMCKV0EjJAqhjU64ijg%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Tim McCormick

Houslets: user-centered living spaces 

http://houslets.com  / @houslets  @tmccormick  /  San Francisco