Berkeley Daily Planet Getting Personal

[Gregory Magofna]

Not sure if you all have seen this, but the Berkeley Daily Planet, a very unfriendly "news" outlet, has taken it upon themselves to do a follow up on the LPC (Landmarks Preservation Commission) to paint us as a corporate (YELP) funded, evil organization. Looks like we're doing something right.

See the eerily, stalker-ish article complete with name calling: 

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2015-03-27/article/43156?headline=Berkeley-s-LPC-will-take-a-look-at-the-view-of-the-Golden-Gate-from-the-Campanile-on-Thursday--Becky-O-Malley 

Quote:

"On the left you’ll see a longtime Berkeley consultant who often fronts for developers, Tim Frank. Next to him is Jon Schwark, who told people at the table that he’s lived in a rent-controlled San Francisco apartment for twenty years after moving here from Oklahoma. Next to him there’s another Midwestern transplant, Ian Monroe from Missouri, in Berkeley for a bit over 2 years, a techie who commutes to San Francisco for work. The guy on the far right, the one wearing the 60s’ style prairie dress and the straw bonnet, is Alfred, the cartoonist. 

The small person crouched under the table is, probably, one Libby Lee-Egan, though she’s hard to identify in this photo. 

Missing here, but reported to have been present, is SFBARF founder Sonja Trauss. "

[Douglas Radtke]

Becky O'Malley served on Berkeley's Landmarks Preservation Commission for 7 years, just a little bit of bias perhaps?

--
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/d023059f-f390-481c-971e-98d038964546%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Michael T]

Ugh, I didn't like them even when I was attending UC Berkeley. Looks like they're still about as icky as I remembered. Are we doing anything to answer this? I think we should.

[Derek Sagehorn]

I don't think it is prudent to directly respond to this column. Rather, we should note Ms. O'Malley's well-worn arguments but focus on the YIMBY perspective on individual projects. Getting into a mud-slinging contests wastes precious political capital.

Derek Sagehorn

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/9e4f7d33-1121-4dda-9925-833da609490a%40googlegroups.com.

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

--

Derek Sagehorn

Juris Doctor Candidate, 2015
University of San Francisco School of Law
(925) 783-1963
sag...@gmail.com

[Jon Schwark]

LOL...

I remember talking to her. Just to set the record straight... I'm not from Oklahoma, though we did speak at length about how we (and Ian) were all transplants from the midwest. Somehow since she moved here she has decided that other midwesterners should stay at home and not come to Berkeley or California. Conveniently, the cutoff was right after she got here in 196x. I do have rent control, but I haven't had one rent-controlled place continuously for 20 years. I WISH!!! She didn't tell us it was an interview or I would have put on my fancy interview tie! The "small person" under the table is my daughter. She is 8. I guess Becky forgot her reading glasses that day?

Considering she got pretty much every fact she wrote about me wrong, I'm just going to say there's not much actual journalism to see here, don't bother.

Jon

[Sonja Trauss]

Yeah no engaging with trolls.

--
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/a2ab3130-29df-405d-8abe-bf1601979bab%40googlegroups.com.

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

--

Come to the Renters' Fed next general meeting and 3rd Panel: State Law and Housing Production. Tuesday April 7th: https://www.facebook.com/events/1428189084158239/

[Mike Schiraldi]

I totally agree. But if you should ever get pinned into an argument where the other side of claiming BARF is illegitimate because it's donor-supported, you can point out that basically every group involved in the Bay Area housing debate is. Here's a list of some:

https://www.reddit.com/r/SFBARF/wiki/faq#wiki_barf_receives_money_from_people.2C_so_their_integrity_is_compromised

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAPuzLurviytJ2g%2B%2BH%3DStB%3DO0eodX6U0DVBExh40W8zRRwdFfkg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bob McGrew]

I thought the quoted description of you guys was charming.  I'd put that up on the FB page. :)  I'd much rather hang out with you guys than with her.

Bob

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAHGvtgNMvJbO40gaO5MpRa7DRRNR6iDat-qH_3QGUCY60QE2vA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mike Ege]

Yeah, this is pretty much Badge of Honor stuff. Haters Gonna Hate.

Sonja> you get my emails?

M

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CALpEGk92XLZs%3DjROgJcKv-5yPpUOTHHuTC0oBmd%2Bd2Rgqtt1BQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Max Gasner]

Honestly I think this is a great article. Arguing that the poors shouldn't be able to move out after a breakup? Having issues with identifying children as children (vs. suspicious small people)? Reminding everyone again and again how funny and good-spirited the name and attitude of the group are? Get off my lawn, you young activists, you? I mean, could it make a better case against the other side?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CALpEGk92XLZs%3DjROgJcKv-5yPpUOTHHuTC0oBmd%2Bd2Rgqtt1BQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jon Schwark]

I do feel the need to point out that this group is public, so just posting up here IS publicly responding. We know we have a lot of Plaza Negative 309 and 48 Hills lurkers, and I'm sure at least a few from Berkeley anti-density groups. Chances are Becky O'Malley will find her way up here eventually.

[Brian Hanlon]

I love the part where Becky laments the "Sacramento-style hardball politics [that the Mayor brought] to Berkeley. It sure is ugly, isn’t it?" I've never been insulted by so many senior citizens in my life (and millionaire seniors at that)! A group of oldsters started yelling at me after the meeting, calling me "stupid" and then making fun of me for going to a less prestigious school, or something. (I graduated from the University of Virginia.) The funny thing is that one of the angry old ladies also (apparently) reads Paul Krugman and the New York Review of Books, but obviously knows nothing of Krugman's economic beliefs. She's got to be the first lefty I've met that reads Krugman for his funny quips about conservatives.

Brian

On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 10:21 AM, 'Jon Schwark' via SFBA Renters Federation <SFBAren...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

I do feel the need to point out that this group is public, so just posting up here IS publicly responding. We know we have a lot of Plaza Negative 309 and 48 Hills lurkers, and I'm sure at least a few from Berkeley anti-density groups. Chances are Becky O'Malley will find her way up here eventually.

--
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/d1360622-d7fb-4a1e-8f65-4fed4c58e673%40googlegroups.com.

[Mike Schiraldi]

The article also uses the same old "this is trickle-down economics" claim.

I'd like to add to our FAQ a response to this common myth. Would
anyone like to take a crack at writing up an explanation of how
trickle-down economics has absolutely nothing to do with what BARF is
advocating? If you write it up here, I'll insert it into the FAQ.

Another criticism from the article already has a response in the FAQ:
Becky writes, "But there’s a bit more to life than that. Nature, for
example. But that’s so Earth Day, so old school," and this corresponds
to our answer at
https://www.reddit.com/r/SFBARF/wiki/faq#wiki_it.27s_bad_for_the_environment_to_bring_more_people_to_san_francisco

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAH5c7xu-8EPoqHNEOFeiJqF7wW7nzoeCrf8ZiEATrE%2BCzQbpsg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ian Monroe]

Well it's hard since basically we are arguing for a supply-side solution to housing. Trickle down economics is basically a term for supply-side economics.

The problem is explaining that lower taxes on the rich is a bad supply-side solution, since none of the problems we have relate to rich people not having enough money to invest. We do have a real supply side problem in that there isn't enough housing predominately because of government regulation. Personally I don't have the conflict: IMO we should have rise the top tax bracket and build houses, this isn't a contradiction because they are both good policies for independent reasons.  However there's no neat story with a bow on it, no simplistic moralistic crusades.

Ian

>> email to SFBArentersfed+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/d1360622-d7fb-4a1e-8f65-4fed4c58e673%40googlegroups.com.
>>
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> --
> 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 SFBArentersfed+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAH5c7xu-8EPoqHNEOFeiJqF7wW7nzoeCrf8ZiEATrE%2BCzQbpsg%40mail.gmail.com.
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
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 SFBArentersfed+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAHGvtgP846gVSnuPrjRjic-J2KhX1AhkpSe2wNDEDXSbD1_Ocg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tony Albert]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

"'Trickle-down economics', also referred to as 'trickle-down theory'...is the idea that tax breaks or other economic benefits provided to businesses and upper income levels will inevitably benefit poorer members of society by improving the economy as a whole."

I politely disagree. Only the loosest interpretation of "economic benefit" would draw supply-side economics into the umbrella of trickle-down economics. In principle, trickle-down is the idea that directly offering benefits to the wealthiest, or to successful businesses, will eventually benefit all. Allowing market-rate construction is no more a "benefit" to the wealthy than stopping your car at a crosswalk is a "benefit" to pedestrians. I don't believe we should ever concede that allowing supply to meet demand constitutes trickle-down...this is an oft-harped-upon talking point aimed at driving a wedge between social liberals and for-profit developers. This wedge is aimed at dragging the entire process to a halt through intimidation.

>> email to SFBArentersfe...@googlegroups.com.

>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/d1360622-d7fb-4a1e-8f65-4fed4c58e673%40googlegroups.com.
>>
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> --
> 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/CAH5c7xu-8EPoqHNEOFeiJqF7wW7nzoeCrf8ZiEATrE%2BCzQbpsg%40mail.gmail.com.
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
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.

[Libby Lee-Egan]

One of the more hurtful things I heard at that tabling was from a local writer who dismissed what I was saying with "well, you're new to the political process." I guess I've lead a cushy life, but I've never had someone say to my face that I lack credibility because of my age. But I had no idea I was *so* young that I could be mistaken for a small child. I'll remember this when I turn 30 this weekend.

[Mike Schiraldi]

Wear it like a badge of honor, Libby. When your opponents have nothing
to say about your position and have to resort to ad hominem attacks,
you know you're on the right track.

Happy Birthday!

[Tony Albert]

Seconding that. That kind of childish low-blow is nothing but ideological flailing. He may have been born first, but it sounds like you're his mental senior.

[Douglas Radtke]

Let's just say I had somebody criticize me for being too young to run for city council at age 30.

My opponent who won got all the labor endorsements from his family connections was 25.

Age is irrelevant and folks will make ad hominems. Run for office and people will say all kinds of bogus nasty things about you that are untrue.

Part of fixing problems is rolling up the sleeves and getting a little "mud" on your face like this. Keep it up!

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/2a03b747-71d4-47a6-9a5f-7bb7980b8d54%40googlegroups.com.

[Starchild]

Mike,

Here's some material for the FAQ:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is ironic when defenders of economic freedom such as activists who want to let housing be built with a minimum of red tape are accused of favoring "trickle-down" economics, because statism -- the philosophy behind government land use planning -- is the ultimate "trickle-down" system.

Letting people do what they want with their own property -- including developing it as they choose -- as long as they do not initiate force or fraud against others, is a bottom-up approach.

Statism, by contrast, is top-down. Statists advocate that decisions made by billionaire entities like San Francisco city government (annual budget in 2015: $8. billion) must take precedence over the decisions of individuals.

The statist approach to housing policy uses tools like bond measures to take resources from the people and centralize them in the hands of government, from whence they are supposed to "trickle down" to homeless and low income individuals in the form of government-owned or subsidized housing.

The statist approach to housing policy also centralizes decision-making authority in the hands of government regulators and planners, from whose paternalistic hands wise rules and decisions are expected to "trickle down", eventually (when the regulators get around to updating the rules to bring them more into accord with reality, and the planners get around to scheduling all the relevant hearings and issuing the required permits), to the people who are actually trying to get housing built.

SFBARF activists seek to reduce the artificial barriers to development so that prices come down and people who don't have a lot of money can afford to rent and buy their own housing without relying on trickle-down government subsidies or other forms of official largesse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))

> >> email to SFBArentersfe...@googlegroups.com.

> >> To view this discussion on the web visit
> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/d1360622-d7fb-4a1e-8f65-4fed4c58e673%40googlegroups.com.
> >>
> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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/CAH5c7xu-8EPoqHNEOFeiJqF7wW7nzoeCrf8ZiEATrE%2BCzQbpsg%40mail.gmail.com.
> >
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> 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/CAHGvtgP846gVSnuPrjRjic-J2KhX1AhkpSe2wNDEDXSbD1_Ocg%40mail.gmail.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

> --
> 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/CAHh0A5Xjg59xyjZZw7qMr9CBvEQW5Lkt_0HVcDGy%2B3UXB5JGUw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Starchild]

Oops, left off the full budget amount in the third paragraph (now fixed below). Source for the $8.6 billion budget number is http://sfist.com/2014/06/02/mayor_lees_san_francisco_budget_pro.php

Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))

On Apr 7, 2015, at 3:14 PM, Starchild wrote:

> Mike,
>
> Here's some material for the FAQ:
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> It is ironic when defenders of economic freedom such as activists who want to let housing be built with a minimum of red tape are accused of favoring "trickle-down" economics, because statism -- the philosophy behind government land use planning -- is the ultimate "trickle-down" system.
>
> Letting people do what they want with their own property -- including developing it as they choose -- as long as they do not initiate force or fraud against others, is a bottom-up approach.
>

> Statism, by contrast, is top-down. Statists advocate that decisions made by billionaire entities like San Francisco city government (proposed annual 2014-2015 budget: $8.6 billion) must take precedence over the decisions of individuals.

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/F5EBC0BE-BFC6-4315-8EA9-55FABF5D7DF6%40earthlink.net.

[Jon Schwark]

And another headline:

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2015-04-04/article/43180?headline=Just-BARFin-Along-With-Berkeley-Mayor-Bates-and-his-staff--Becky-O-Malley

It seems, as predicted, Becky has discovered our group. Welcome Becky! 

Regarding a public employee letting a community group know about an agenda item at a city council meeting, this may be a story too big to confine to the (admittedly hallowed) walls of the Berkeley Daily Planet! I suggest you call 60 minutes and see if they will let you do a special report. 

Jon

On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 12:08:13 AM UTC-7, Gregory Magofna wrote:

[Randall Leeds]

I'm not super fond of this response because I think it mischaracterizes bond measures and the like.

In my understand of what people typically mean by "trickle-down" it is about giving benefits to the wealthy hoping that they will then pass along some portion to those who are not so wealthy.

What you describe is more like "trickle-in", if such a thing is useful or meaningful, and it seems like you're stretching the definition of "trickle-down" to fit a prior agenda of yours.

To me, the most succinct answer would somehow communicate that *in the current political environment* affordable housing _comes from_ fees and community benefits imposed on market rate development. Permitting more market rate construction is then the opposite of trickle-down, and it is more like taxing the wealthy to pay for social services than it might at first seem.

Another attempt at summary: all approaches to funding subsidized housing are, by definition, not trickle-down. Whether that funding comes from market rate development or state and federal subsidies is immaterial to the discussion.

By all means, push for more governmental appropriation and development of BMR housing, I say. But that's a long term strategy. In the meantime, we need to use the levers we have and shutting of the faucet completely is nonsense.

I have a feeling that many in this group might actually support these larger, slower levers for affordable housing, though I suspect you might not be one of them.

So I suggest we see if we can find and articulate a response for this argument that we can all agree on. Specifically, I think it should be one that focuses on renters, the sources of both market and BMR development funding, and not on the rights of property owners. This is, after all, the Bay Area RENTERS Federation.

>>>> email to SFBArentersfed+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/d1360622-d7fb-4a1e-8f65-4fed4c58e673%40googlegroups.com.
>>>>
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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 SFBArentersfed+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAH5c7xu-8EPoqHNEOFeiJqF7wW7nzoeCrf8ZiEATrE%2BCzQbpsg%40mail.gmail.com.
>>>
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>> --
>> 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 SFBArentersfed+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAHGvtgP846gVSnuPrjRjic-J2KhX1AhkpSe2wNDEDXSbD1_Ocg%40mail.gmail.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>> --
>> 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 SFBArentersfed+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAHh0A5Xjg59xyjZZw7qMr9CBvEQW5Lkt_0HVcDGy%2B3UXB5JGUw%40mail.gmail.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> 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 SFBArentersfed+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/F5EBC0BE-BFC6-4315-8EA9-55FABF5D7DF6%40earthlink.net.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
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 SFBArentersfed+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/C437ED38-1D6D-41F4-84ED-4D374C0B87B8%40earthlink.net.

[Starchild]

Randall,

I'm sorry you don't like what I wrote. I've never heard the term "trickle-in" before, and don't understand what you mean by that. You say what people typically mean by "trickle-down" is "Giving benefits to the wealthy hoping that they will then pass along some portion to those who are not so wealthy."  I think that *precisely* describes the support of some well-meaning but gullible people for measures that cede more money and control to government. 

Even local governments in this country are often multi-billion dollar operations, as I noted is true of San Francisco city government. These entities rake in money from the public -- taking a nice cut for themselves off the top and paying their equivalent of shareholders (officeholders, employees and pensioners) above-market rates for their present or past investment of labor -- and then spend the rest in a typically inefficient and wasteful manner that rarely manages to put a dent in problems like homelessness and poverty, which have persisted or even gotten worse while the size and cost of government have grown by leaps and bounds.

My description of "trickle-down" is in keeping with the *original* meaning of the phrase, as used in 1932 by Will Rogers (who also said "Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for") about government subsidies to the wealthy:  "The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy." 

Whether funding comes from market rate development or state and federal subsidies is not immaterial to the discussion. In what other context would you say that it doesn't matter whether or not the goods you're receiving are honestly acquired?

"By all means, push for more governmental appropriation and development of (below market rate) housing" is not a response we can all agree on. If you want to find a response we can all agree on, that will not include advocating for government subsidies, which are both immoral and ineffective. Immoral because they rely on the coercive redistribution of resources under threat of violence, and ineffective because they distort the market by diverting resources from their most efficient uses, and require all kinds of extra overhead and process that creates ample opportunities for corruption and waste.

Saying that in the current political environment affordable housing comes from government is like noting that underfed prisoners get their food from prison guards. The problem isn't that the jailers lack food; the problem (from the prisoner's perspective) is how much food the jailers allow to reach them.

I agree however that I could have done a better job describing the connection between property rights and renters. Here's a stab at some additional language for the FAQ, to address the objection "Why should renters care about the property rights of wealthy developers and landowners?":

"Whether you are wealthy or not, it is in my interest as a renter for you as a property owner to be allowed to offer housing to me for rent. This may seem obvious, but there are plenty of regulations which act to interfere with such transactions. Many of them involve restricting people's ability to use their property as they choose, so that landowners who want to develop new rental housing on their land are either unable to do so in the first place, or face so many costs and conditions in doing so that they give up.

Raising taxes on property, meanwhile, does not directly prevent development or rental of that property, but it does make housing less affordable for renters. Property taxes treat owners as renters, effectively forcing them to "rent" their land from the government or lose it. If I'm renting a unit from a true land owner who isn't paying rent in the form of taxes, his/her only relevant expenses are the upkeep and maintenance of the housing. But a landowner who is required to write a monthly or yearly check to government in order to keep title to that property has to first meet that expense in order for being a landlord to make economic sense, which means passing the cost along to renters like myself in the form of higher rents. 

It's tempting to simply prohibit property owners from making up their property tax losses by raising rents. But this is a band-aid solution, because in the long run it means fewer people will want to be landlords and there will be less housing on the market than would have been the case otherwise, which means prices will rise."

Love & Liberty,

                                 ((( starchild )))

>>>> email to SFBArentersfe...@googlegroups.com.

>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/d1360622-d7fb-4a1e-8f65-4fed4c58e673%40googlegroups.com.
>>>>
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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/CAH5c7xu-8EPoqHNEOFeiJqF7wW7nzoeCrf8ZiEATrE%2BCzQbpsg%40mail.gmail.com.
>>>
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>> --
>> 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/CAHGvtgP846gVSnuPrjRjic-J2KhX1AhkpSe2wNDEDXSbD1_Ocg%40mail.gmail.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>> --
>> 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/CAHh0A5Xjg59xyjZZw7qMr9CBvEQW5Lkt_0HVcDGy%2B3UXB5JGUw%40mail.gmail.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> 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/F5EBC0BE-BFC6-4315-8EA9-55FABF5D7DF6%40earthlink.net.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
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.

[Randall Leeds]

On Apr 10, 2015 5:27 PM, "Starchild" <sfdr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Randall,
>
> I'm sorry you don't like what I wrote.

No apology necessary! I'm so glad you took the time to write it out.

> I've never heard the term "trickle-in" before, and don't understand what you mean by that. You say what people typically mean by "trickle-down" is "Giving benefits to the wealthy hoping that they will then pass along some portion to those who are not so wealthy."  I think that *precisely* describes the support of some well-meaning but gullible people for measures that cede more money and control to government. 
>

I was trying to draw a distinction between government policy that benefits wealthy individuals and local vs state/federal sources of allocation or funding.

It's not a term that exists, for sure, and I think I probably did not coin anything meaningful. Not being well versed in the history of the term, it may well be that you're correctly applying it, even if it doesn't mesh with my perception of its colloquially understood connotations.

> Even local governments in this country are often multi-billion dollar operations, as I noted is true of San Francisco city government. These entities rake in money from the public -- taking a nice cut for themselves off the top and paying their equivalent of shareholders (officeholders, employees and pensioners) above-market rates for their present or past investment of labor -- and then spend the rest in a typically inefficient and wasteful manner that rarely manages to put a dent in problems like homelessness and poverty, which have persisted or even gotten worse while the size and cost of government have grown by leaps and bounds.
>

The difference here is that I don't put government in the same category as individuals. Government cannot be wealthy independent of its citizens if its funds are truly spent in their benefit and with their consent.

We certainly have issues with government accountability, responsiveness, efficiency, and transparency in this country. Indeed, doing large institutions well is an ongoing societal challenge.

> Whether funding comes from market rate development or state and federal subsidies is not immaterial to the discussion. In what other context would you say that it doesn't matter whether or not the goods you're receiving are honestly acquired?
>

I can't meaningfully reply because the question is loaded for a person like me who does not consider taxes to be a dishonest appropriation of money.

Sometimes, or even often, ineffectual, but not a bankrupt idea.

> "By all means, push for more governmental appropriation and development of (below market rate) housing" is not a response we can all agree on.

That was my point. It's something I believe in, yet I think we can find common ground responding to critics. So, yes :-).

> I agree however that I could have done a better job describing the connection between property rights and renters. Here's a stab at some additional language for the FAQ, to address the objection "Why should renters care about the property rights of wealthy developers and landowners?":
>
> "Whether you are wealthy or not, it is in my interest as a renter for you as a property owner to be allowed to offer housing to me for rent. This may seem obvious, but there are plenty of regulations which act to interfere with such transactions. Many of them involve restricting people's ability to use their property as they choose, so that landowners who want to develop new rental housing on their land are either unable to do so in the first place, or face so many costs and conditions in doing so that they give up.
>

I'll let other people have a moment to weigh in, and then I'll try to offer my own take.

I just wanted to address your response really quickly to clarify places of possible miscommunication.

Thanks, again!

[Starchild]

On Apr 10, 2015, at 5:51 PM, Randall Leeds wrote:

> On Apr 10, 2015 5:27 PM, "Starchild" <sfdr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > Randall,
> >
> > I'm sorry you don't like what I wrote.
>
> No apology necessary! I'm so glad you took the time to write it out.

I wasn't apologizing, just expressing regret -- but thanks.

> > I've never heard the term "trickle-in" before, and don't understand what you mean by that. You say what people typically mean by "trickle-down" is "Giving benefits to the wealthy hoping that they will then pass along some portion to those who are not so wealthy." I think that *precisely* describes the support of some well-meaning but gullible people for measures that cede more money and control to government.
>
> I was trying to draw a distinction between government policy that benefits wealthy individuals and local vs state/federal sources of allocation or funding.
>
> It's not a term that exists, for sure, and I think I probably did not coin anything meaningful. Not being well versed in the history of the term, it may well be that you're correctly applying it, even if it doesn't mesh with my perception of its colloquially understood connotations.

For my part, one of the points I was trying to make is that having government be a source of funding *does* benefit wealthy individuals. The salaries of people in government who are allocating the funding are paid for, in part, by taxes taken non-consensually from people who have far less money than they do. Admittedly, I generally view someone making a six-figure salary as "wealthy", which I'm sure a lot of people in this town would argue with -- your mileage may vary.

> > Even local governments in this country are often multi-billion dollar operations, as I noted is true of San Francisco city government. These entities rake in money from the public -- taking a nice cut for themselves off the top and paying their equivalent of shareholders (officeholders, employees and pensioners) above-market rates for their present or past investment of labor -- and then spend the rest in a typically inefficient and wasteful manner that rarely manages to put a dent in problems like homelessness and poverty, which have persisted or even gotten worse while the size and cost of government have grown by leaps and bounds.
> >
>
> The difference here is that I don't put government in the same category as individuals. Government cannot be wealthy independent of its citizens if its funds are truly spent in their benefit and with their consent.

You may be right. But I would take issue with any claim that government funds are, on the whole, "truly spent in (our) benefit", and taxation is obviously non-conensual on an individual level.

> We certainly have issues with government accountability, responsiveness, efficiency, and transparency in this country. Indeed, doing large institutions well is an ongoing societal challenge.

Strongly agreed. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that large institutions -- government or non-government -- are inherently dangerous. In a true free market, they would face much more competition from small enterprise and have a lot more trouble getting so big, but unfortunately the current system stifles a lot of that competition with laws, regulations, licensing, taxes, and so on.

> > Whether funding comes from market rate development or state and federal subsidies is not immaterial to the discussion. In what other context would you say that it doesn't matter whether or not the goods you're receiving are honestly acquired?
> >
>
> I can't meaningfully reply because the question is loaded for a person like me who does not consider taxes to be a dishonest appropriation of money.

Fair point. I should have said "coercive" rather than dishonest. Clearly many people do believe that the coercive nature of taxation as it is currently practiced is honest and necessary.

> Sometimes, or even often, ineffectual, but not a bankrupt idea.
>
> > "By all means, push for more governmental appropriation and development of (below market rate) housing" is not a response we can all agree on.
>
> That was my point. It's something I believe in, yet I think we can find common ground responding to critics. So, yes :-).

Oh, okay. I guess I did misunderstand you, I thought you were advocating more government BMR housing requirements.

> > I agree however that I could have done a better job describing the connection between property rights and renters. Here's a stab at some additional language for the FAQ, to address the objection "Why should renters care about the property rights of wealthy developers and landowners?":
> >
> > "Whether you are wealthy or not, it is in my interest as a renter for you as a property owner to be allowed to offer housing to me for rent. This may seem obvious, but there are plenty of regulations which act to interfere with such transactions. Many of them involve restricting people's ability to use their property as they choose, so that landowners who want to develop new rental housing on their land are either unable to do so in the first place, or face so many costs and conditions in doing so that they give up.
> >
>
> I'll let other people have a moment to weigh in, and then I'll try to offer my own take.
>
> I just wanted to address your response really quickly to clarify places of possible miscommunication.
>
> Thanks, again!

No problem, you too. Always good to have a thoughtful, civil exchange of ideas.