Skip to first unread message
Jon Schwark
Apr 19, 2015, 4:31:45 AM4/19/15
to SFBAren...@googlegroups.com
The FAQ Game – where we put out the the question and YOU answer it. Best answers will be edited into the FAQ. When we have a sufficient answer, we will make a new topic for the next question.
Today's Question: Isn't this just trickle-down economics?
Maybe Scott Wiener said it best at the SF Board of Supervisors recently:
Supply-side economics and the law of supply and demand are different things.Just because they both have the word 'supply' in them does not mean that they're the same thing. And so supply and demand is a factor in housing prices, even though some in San Francisco contend otherwise.And just because you believe that producing enough housing actually matters in housing prices, that that means you're advocating for a completely different concept called supply side economics, which I doubt that anyone in this room is advocating for, I just view that as an incredibly cynical argument.
It's good political rhetoric, but it is a very very cynical argument.
Maybe we keep this for the FAQ, but maybe we need refine and expand on it. Any thoughts?
Matt Thrailkill
Apr 19, 2015, 1:32:58 PM4/19/15
to Jon Schwark, SFBAren...@googlegroups.com
Personally I think what Scott Wiener said is good, but I think the affordable housing anti-gentrification types hate him. So him saying this is just more proof to them that he is a terrible supervisor and doesn't know how anything works. Is it bad to quote or endorse rational people?
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 1:31 AM, 'Jon Schwark' via SFBA Renters Federation <SFBAren...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
The FAQ Game – where we put out the the question and YOU answer it. Best answers will be culled for the FAQ.
Today's Question: Isn't this just trickle-down economics?Maybe Scott Wiener said it best at the SF Board of Supervisors recently:Supply-side economics and the law of supply and demand are different things.Just because they both have the word 'supply' in them does not mean that they're the same thing. And so supply and demand is a factor in housing prices, even though some in San Francisco contend otherwise.And just because you believe that producing enough housing actually matters in housing prices, that that means you're advocating for a completely different concept called supply side economics, which I doubt that anyone in this room is advocating for, I just view that as an incredibly cynical argument.It's good political rhetoric, but it is a very very cynical argument.Maybe we keep this for the FAQ, but maybe we need refine and expand on it. Any thoughts?
--
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/037ce595-a368-45bc-b72c-07c9c2e79979%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Jon Schwark
Apr 19, 2015, 4:26:27 PM4/19/15
to SFBAren...@googlegroups.com, ma...@thrailkill.org, js...@yahoo.com
Not bad at all to quote rational people, but he was talking off the cuff in a board meeting, and I think we can distill what is there down, and expand on it a bit. I know some people on the group have degrees in finance and economics, or at least know more about the subject than I do.
On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 10:32:58 AM UTC-7, Matt Thrailkill wrote:
Personally I think what Scott Wiener said is good, but I think the affordable housing anti-gentrification types hate him. So him saying this is just more proof to them that he is a terrible supervisor and doesn't know how anything works. Is it bad to quote or endorse rational people?
Mike Ege
Apr 19, 2015, 8:00:40 PM4/19/15
to Jon Schwark, sfbarentersfed, Matt Thrailkill
Okay here's what I'm finding hard to understand.
"Trickle-down economics" to me means that you give rich people and businesses tax breaks so that they will either spend more money generally or expand their businesses. The end result of this is supposed to be that more people end up being employed in good jobs, or people who run small businesses or individual services get more business, and so on.
Needless to say we know that this doesn't work all the time, because rich people have a tendency to just stuff more money in their "mattresses", such as their stock portfolios or property.
It sounds to me that the progressive narrative about building more market rate housing being "trickle-down economics" is based on the idea that when we allow developers to build more market rate (which they automatically categorize as "luxury") housing, that more BMR's and in-laws will get built "for the rest of us". This is a pretty dramatic misrepresentation (or if you wish to give them credit, misinterpretation) of what housing boosters are proposing. We instead are proposing to increase the overall supply of housing units, with an end result of at least part of the open market supply being affordable for working people.
One of the assumptions behind this misinterpretation/misrepresentation is that building in the Bay Area (San Francisco in particular) will continue to be difficult because of preconceived ideas about the region already being "full" already, the usual provincialism, etc.
Meanwhile on our side, we understand that other communities have higher levels of density than any place in the Bay Area, but have quality of life levels which are equal to or greater than our own. With regard to this perception, the progressives and the NIMBYs are essentially using preconceived provincial ideas to put forth a false narrative about how much housing density the Bay Area can provide.
I think this generally goes towards different assumptions about what the proper role of deed-restricted, subsidized, "capital-a" affordable housing should be. The progressives seem to be under the impression that one of the answers we are considering is opening up deed-restricted housing to more of the upper half of the AMI table. And that idea has been regrettably thrown about by some elected officials. In contrast, I think most people on this list, certainly myself, believe that people who are earning their own incomes generally should not have to resort to deed-restricted housing.
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 1:26 PM, 'Jon Schwark' via SFBA Renters Federation <SFBAren...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Not bad at all to quote rational people, but he was talking off the cuff in a board meeting, and I think we can distill what is there down, and expand on it a bit. I know some people on the group have degrees in finance and economics, or at least know more about the subject than I do.
On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 10:32:58 AM UTC-7, Matt Thrailkill wrote:
Personally I think what Scott Wiener said is good, but I think the affordable housing anti-gentrification types hate him. So him saying this is just more proof to them that he is a terrible supervisor and doesn't know how anything works. Is it bad to quote or endorse rational people?
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 1:31 AM, 'Jon Schwark' via SFBA Renters Federation <SFBAren...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
The FAQ Game – where we put out the the question and YOU answer it. Best answers will be culled for the FAQ.Today's Question: Isn't this just trickle-down economics?Maybe Scott Wiener said it best at the SF Board of Supervisors recently:Supply-side economics and the law of supply and demand are different things.Just because they both have the word 'supply' in them does not mean that they're the same thing. And so supply and demand is a factor in housing prices, even though some in San Francisco contend otherwise.And just because you believe that producing enough housing actually matters in housing prices, that that means you're advocating for a completely different concept called supply side economics, which I doubt that anyone in this room is advocating for, I just view that as an incredibly cynical argument.It's good political rhetoric, but it is a very very cynical argument.Maybe we keep this for the FAQ, but maybe we need refine and expand on it. Any thoughts?
--
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/348df69d-dc12-411c-935a-cee429215353%40googlegroups.com.
Randall Leeds
Apr 19, 2015, 9:17:22 PM4/19/15
to Mike Ege, Jon Schwark, sfbarentersfed, Matt Thrailkill
Here's my ultra simple attempt:
When you deny a wealthy person a tax break, those taxes can be spent on services you enjoy.
When you deny a wealthy person a house, they take yours.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SFBArentersfed/CAErTFbrVW6N00O5wZ2Wm2JG7RThqmUBJP%3DSB0dj7JZJoWf2Ztg%40mail.gmail.com.
Randall Leeds
Apr 19, 2015, 9:18:08 PM4/19/15
to Mike Ege, Jon Schwark, sfbarentersfed, Matt Thrailkill
Thus a progressive can support progressive taxation and housing development and both serve "everyone else".
Mike Ege
Apr 19, 2015, 9:20:36 PM4/19/15
to Randall Leeds, Jon Schwark, sfbarentersfed, Matt Thrailkill
BINGO!
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages