BIG day for housing at the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday
Tomorrow’s BoS meeting will likely be (and darn well should be) heavily attended by housing advocates, with two very big items up for a final vote:
1. Peskin’s condo conversion restriction legislation
2. Bayview/Hunter’s Point Redevelopment
There was lots of talk on #1 when it was first suggested by Peskin and approved by the Land Use Committee, but given that it hits the Board of Supervisors tomorrow, there seems to be way too little attention being paid to it today…
The retroactivity of this legislation back to 1999 seems to me like little more than a way to provide a concession in tomorrow’s meeting. I’ve heard from a couple of sources that Peskin will amend his own legislation to exclude the retroactivity. This makes otherwise bad legislation look like a political BARGAIN. It’s still really crappy legislation, but it will likely pass solidly and will not get a veto. Newsom can’t afford another anti-tenant veto at this point…
The item is near the middle of the program (#19 of 45 items). The PDF of the actual legislation can be found here.
The second item has also fallen quiet lately… The Bayview/Hunters Point Redevelopment was a very hot topic in February/March of this year, and is in front of the BoS as item #29 of 45. The 114-page PDF file can be found here.
The pro-redelopment folks swear up and down that this will not affect any existing housing and will only add more housing and job opportunities while reducing “blight”. The folks who lived through the 1960s in the Fillmore don’t believe them, however, and are concerned about gentrification.
If you care about either of these items (and who in San Francisco really wouldn’t be affected in one way or another by BOTH of these issues), you should send an email or make a call to your supervisor RIGHT NOW.
With so much on the agenda tomorrow, it’s entirely possible that one or both of these will be continued, but it’s not worth saving 30 seconds of time to find out that they were both voted upon and you didn’t make that call.
Just take a minute and do it. Your opinion will be heard, no matter which side of the debate you’re on.
TIC eviction legislation moves on to full board [SFHomeBlog]
The ‘cost’ of Peskin’s eviction legislation [SFHomeBlog]
Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Plan moves closer to approval [SFHomeBlog]
Public Hearing for Bayview/Hunters Point Redevelopment – March 7th [SFHomeBlog]
Matt,
I’m still unclear as to why this is “crappy legislation.” Please explain.
Als, I ask you the same thing I asked Cameron (to which he did not respond) to you.
Compare my argument that (1) adding high-end housing (ie > $700k) leads to gentrification, (2)gentrification leads to higher prices versus your argument that (1) add high-end housing leads to greater supply (2) greater supply reduces price.
Please explain why your argument is superior to mine. For more information on the problems with conclusions based on micro-economic theory, check out what is required to have perfect competition.
The theory of supply and demand usually assumes that markets are perfectly competitive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microeconomics
KK at May 9th, 2006 at 1:20 am ( )Good Morning,
It will be interesting to see what the BoS does this morning.
Kurt, I did not respond because, as I wrote, that was my last post on the topic..at least from the angle I was attempting to look at it.
To borrow an old phrase: we could post back and forth until the cows come home and we are not going to agree. I am not even sure we were discussing the same issue.
Your questions/points were addressed several times by various posters, not all of whom disagreed with you on every nuance of your postings.
Now, however, the time for debate is done. The BoS will do what it will do. Newsom will do what he will do. Interested parties on both sides will be able to see the results and of course experience the consequences no matter what happens.
My hope is that SF becomes more affordable for all who choose to live here.
Regards.
CameronRex at May 9th, 2006 at 5:42 pm ( )High-end?
There a lot of places in this city where $700K buys a sh**box in a very average neighborhood. And no gentrification will be forthcoming, either.
This is very definitely crappy legislation.
It only makes the NIMBY-ists and the delusional happy.
sf jack at May 9th, 2006 at 8:32 pm ( )Jack! Do we actually agree on something? I love it!
Thanks for your comments, as always… Agree or disagree…
Matt Lanning at May 9th, 2006 at 8:51 pm ( )Cameron,
I like how you refuse to address the question even when it would take only a second.
Jack, You’re clearly pointing to an exception. In general, I assume you agree with me.
Kurt
kk at May 10th, 2006 at 12:20 am ( )Kurt –
I disagree with you – for what’s the exception?
Allowing any kind of housing to be built in SF, even at the high end, will relieve pressure on prices.
If you think homebuying is a “hostile” activity presently for middle class residents, just wait until all the “new” restrictions (condo construction, new Ellis limits on conversions) have their full effect.
Those who can afford to will continue to chase the crap available which I referred to earlier, as SF becomes even more balkanized between rich and poor in the future.
Matt –
Yes, there’s quite a lot you and I probably agree on, except on one issue – and you likely know what that is!
sf jack at May 10th, 2006 at 11:10 pm ( )SF Jack,
You say, “Allowing any kind of housing to be built in SF, even at the high end, will relieve pressure on prices.” Please explain your reasoning. If it’s based on supply and demand, please answer the following:
Compare my argument that (1) adding high-end housing (ie > $700k) leads to gentrification, (2)gentrification leads to higher prices versus your argument that (1) add high-end housing leads to greater supply (2) greater supply reduces price.
Please explain why your argument is superior to mine. Thanks.
KK at May 11th, 2006 at 2:55 am ( )Kurt
Why has no one including Matt, Cameron, or SF Jack addressed my question? You guys all say that more housing will reduce prices based on microeconomics. But I’ve shown where this is sketchy in terms of its assumptions and thus predictions. For example, The theory of supply and demand usually assumes that markets are perfectly competitive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microeconomics
So again my question:
Compare my argument that (1) adding high-end housing (ie > $700k) leads to gentrification, (2)gentrification leads to higher prices versus your argument that (1) add high-end housing leads to greater supply (2) greater supply reduces price.
Please explain why your argument is superior to mine.
KK at May 11th, 2006 at 10:55 pm ( )Kurt, it has become apparent that none of my comments (or anyone else’s for that matter) will ever be superior to yours.
So, you win.
Isn’t that what you wanted to hear?
I don’t have a masters in economics or the 10 hours/day that would be required to read everything that you reference in your comments. So my opinions are just that… opinions.
I appreciate your reading my blog and making comments, but sometimes we just have to agree to disagree.
Matt Lanning at May 11th, 2006 at 11:08 pm ( )Kurt,
I respectfully suggest you read back through all the posts on this topic as well as the orginal one where this discussion started. Your question(s) were addressed – I won’t say answered because for you it is not the answer you want and you won’t accept otherwise – so there is no point in any of us continuing to respond to your queries when you don’t seem to read what we have written.
Matt, thanks again for the forum.
CameronRex at May 11th, 2006 at 11:24 pm ( )Cameron,
I read through the posts and don’t see where this question was addressed at all. I’d be easy to address right now, however. But we both know that by addressing the question, you lose the argument. The fact is that your argument that adding supply reduce price is flat out wrong. At the very least, you should be honest admit it is unclear at best–this was the argument in the first place.
Or you can continue to pretend that you addressed the issue with no reference, evidence or anything. It’s up to you. But if you don’t address the question, as Matt said, I win.
I would ask that you never refer to the adding supply reduces housing prices again. Thanks.
KK at May 12th, 2006 at 10:48 pm ( )Kurt,
If adding supply has no hope of reducing housing costs and I assume you can’t believe that restricting supply is going to lower housing costs then these two beliefs combined mean housing costs will only go up in SF.
Yeah, as Matt wrote, you win.
Have a great weekend. You have made me laugh and for that I thank you.
CameronRex at May 13th, 2006 at 12:20 am ( )Cameron,
You also make me laugh, many times out loud. But you almost got it this time. Housing goes up, but goes up faster with gentrification. Very good. I give you a C+ for this part of the class, A- on the curve.
I hope this will be a lesson for all of you not to open your mouths about micro-economic theory unless you actually understand it. My advise is for you to stick to the facts and appeal to social justice.
For our next lesson, I would like to explain why maximizing shareholder value is bad for society–the opposite of neo-liberal thought/micro-econ says.
Until then, check out the Olin Foundation on wikipedia to see why you’re all so confused. Thanks for you time. Kurt
Anonymous at May 13th, 2006 at 1:01 am ( )Hi folks,
It’s me the original anonymous poster who did the bullet points on KK’s work on some of the other posts. I’ve been away on a much needed vacation so I put away my thinking cap for awhile. Anyways I think I can respond to Kurt’s queries.
1. Kurt said “For more information on the problems with conclusions based on micro-economic theory, check out what is required to have perfect competition”
My response to this would be. How is the real estate market in San Francisco a monopoly, duopoly, oligopoly or exhibit non competitive behavior? For the first part the real estate market is one of the few markets where almost perfect competition occurs. Why? B/c no single owner or group of owners wields enough power to influence the market on it’s own. There’s an almost infinite supply of ’sellers’ (eg the ones able to sell not necessarily selling) and ‘buyers’ (eg the pool of people who would buy what the sellers produce). That’s the definition of perfect competition. Buyers and sellers move in and out of the marketplace depending on you get it – the law of supply and demand! High prices move more sellers into the markeplace and drive out buyers and vice versa. Now for the second part. How does a perfectly competitive market then exhibit non-competitive behavior? Well apart from one-time events such as natural disasters and job-layoffs the thing that perturbs the market the most is … (drum roll please)… regulation! Things like rent-control and Mr. Peskin’s rules do things like that. And what do those things usually do? They push supply and demand curves to extremes and further exacerbate the problem – not fix the core issue.
2. Kurt said “(1) adding high-end housing (ie > $700k) leads to gentrification, (2)gentrification leads to higher prices”
My response would be well, that’s an interesting circular argument. First off if this theory is correct then all you have to do to say revitalize Detroit’s decaying central hub would be to add one ‘high-end’ house in the slums and then the cycle should just take off. I would be very hard-pressed to prove that comment. I would agree that high-end housing and gentrification are interrelated, but they are merely aspects of the same thing. Also what do terms ‘high-end’ and ‘gentrification’ mean? Who sets the bar for what is high-end housing and what gentrification is? It’s the market! Those two terms are merely parts of … (drum roll please) … demand! Demand as in the law of supply and demand. Demand determines what high-end is and what gentrification is. This kind of circular argument is typical of many policy groupies. In economist speak – you’re focusing merely on demand side arguments and not on encompassing picture of supply issues as well. In order to exit out of the cycle you’re suggeting you need to focus on the supply side because trying to influence the demand side (eg regulations) is obviously not working.
So to summarize – real estate competitive – show how it’s not (to coin your phrase be specific); your arguments are demand side arguments and don’t focus on supply at all – which doesn’t look at the big picture and solve the problems.
As a side note all my economist friends (ie professors at Berkeley, Stanford, and University of Chicago) are getting a nice chuckle over your discussion. They point out to me there’s really no point in trying to convince you of this b/c it seems you’ve already made your decision and refuse to budge b/c of emotion. They also point out that this is how politicians get elected to do these sorts of things even though the majority of data out there from economists suggests otherwise – b/c emotion gets people elected not good policies.
Anonymous at May 16th, 2006 at 10:24 am ( )Anonymous…welcome back and thanks for the further clairification. The Detroit example is excellent. A wee bit more stark than my own of the ‘Outer Sunset’.
CameronRex at May 17th, 2006 at 5:27 pm ( )