SoMa skyscrapers pushed
From today's Examiner,
...the newest tower, located on Fremont Street between Harrison and Folsom streets, would include up to 330 residential units in a 400-foot tower. The proposed project would involve the demolition of two buildings, both of which are marine labor union halls considered to be historical resources.
On Thursday, San Francisco’s Planning Commission was scheduled to consider several requests for planning code variations from the project sponsors, Colorado-based Archstone Smith Operating Trust and San Francisco’s Jackson Pacific Ventures. Planning staff have recommended approval of the requests, including an exception to a parking requirement that limits parking for residential units to a ratio of one space per two units. Instead, the developers have asked for one parking space per unit, on the grounds that because the parking is underground it won’t impact the surrounding area — an assertion challenged by the project’s critics.
All matters related to 340 Fremont Street were postponed until next week, however, after one of the Planning Commission members asked for an extra week to review the Final Environmental Impact Report. [more...]
posted by Matt Lanning @ 11:52 AM
15 comments
links to this post
15 Comments:
Matt,
Let's hear your opinion on the SOMA towers, which result in the demolition of historical buildings. Don't tell me, "we need more housing."
We need more housing so you can have more money, not because it lowers price. But people don't know that. It's a clever argument, Matt, I'll give it to you.
KK
PS How long before you delete this post?
Kurt -
I am actually going to leave the post, but I will not respond. For you, this is no longer about intelligent debate, but rather personal attacks.
You do not know me, and you do not know anything about my financial beliefs or background. And I do not feel any need to include that discussion on a post about real estate. Nobody cares about this but you.
I'm done responding to comments from you that have no basis in logical or intelligent debate and especially have nothing to do with the topic of discussion.
Perhaps you should just try burying your head in the sand. If you aren't seeing or hearing the world around you, then you won't have to complain about the inevitability of change.
Haha,
so you deleted my second post. you're hilarious. what did i say that bothered you?
All i said was that others would be interested in your opinion. afterall, you post your opinion all the time. you're afraid say what your opinion is on SOMA towers because you want the historical buildings demolished in order to keep padding your pocket.
then I said that your post has no substance, just hot air.
Kurt! CHILL! You obviously forgot to hit SUBMIT, as there was never any second post for me to delete (although by your tone, I probably would have).
This proves that you are nothing more than a conspiracy theorist.
Go find a job or a hobby or something and quit wasting my time.
Matt,
I believe that you did not delete the post. I think that you stretch it by saying I am a conspiracy theorist, however.
I realize you do not want to answer the question and thus, as usual, deflect to other issues.
So here is your answer--you want the buildings demolished. thanks.
And I will keep posting on your blog as long as you keep touting your conservative, pro-development, anti-sf resident, ignorant, rhetoric.
KK
Hi folks,
This is the anonymous poster who's been refuting Kurt's economic theories. Anyways I've been
resisting the urge to comment on Kurt's messages because it falls on deaf ears, but I think this warrants it.
First off though, I would like to say that I really think Matt is doing a great job with his
blog. It's sometimes difficult to carry on blogging when you have an active heckler like Kurt
and I just wanted to give you a little emotional boost saying to keep on doing your work.
Anyways, in response to Kurt's stuff. Let's start off by linking the orginal refutation on
Kurt's anti-supply/demand theories. I haven't heard a response so I'm curious to see what he comes up with.
http://www.mattlanning.com/2006/05/big-day-for-housing-at-board-of.html#c114777506042290584
Also, I believe that Kurt is misguided in terms of the real problems in San Francisco. It seems like Kurt claims that all this eviction stuff is causing 'real San Franciscans' to move out. The
given data seems to show that about 300-500 evictions occur per year. Here's the link to prove that:
http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2006/05/15/editorial4.html?hbx=e_sw
Now given that the average household is about 2.4/2.3 people...
(from http://www.mtc.ca.gov/maps_and_data/datamart/forecast/ao/aotab123.htm#table3)
that comes out to about 690-1200 poor souls being evicted from their homes per year. I think at
this point Kurt would say: "This is terrible! How dare this happen in my city. We need to burn
those darn evictors at the stake."
At first glance without looking at the big picture I too would say the same thing, but I have a
bad habit of trying to look at both sides of the issue and making my own judgement. The thing
that comes to my mind is "hmmm how many people actually leave San Francisco and for what reason?"
Just recently the chronicle did a nice series about this that no one really saw. This series
discusses an interesting trend - which is why aren't there any kids in SF? It does a nice job of
explaining where the real outflux of San Franciscans out of the city comes from. Here's the
link:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/30/MNG1HJ48O81.DTL
The most disturbing part of this article if you say click on the link on the demographic chart is
is that over a five year span nearly 500,000 people left San Francisco. On a yearly basis that's about 100,000 people. Their top reasons - "home prices and education". Who replaces
those people leaving? It's people from out of town. Do they come here and buy houses? No, they
rent. Relative to the number of evictions based on San Francisco's population of about one
million these numbers are vastly lopsided. Saving those poor evicted souls effects 0.0012% of
the population whereas the number leaving b/c they can't afford homes is 10% of the population.
So where really is the problem? Hmmmmm 100,000 native San Franciscans leaving vs. 1200
hmmmm....I wonder...
I could see Kurt asking - well why don't those families just rent just like me! Well if you read
into the article above, people with families like having security and piece of mind. Owning a
home is one of the best ways to save money through tax breaks and increase in equity. People
with families think beyond themselves and have to think about providing for their children.
I imagine Kurt would say, "but that darn gentrification is the bane of all evil and existence.
why they're turning my blue collar slum into a nicer neighborhood. I want to have people peeing
on my doorstep and threatening my children! That adds character! Gentrification must be
stopped at all costs!"
The funny thing is, is that all those wonderful programs that are funded by the city for the
homeless, those with Aids, senior citizens etc etc. They almost were under the chopping block
during this budget cycle. And you know what, they weren't cut b/c somehow the city was able to
get more revenue to fund things. Where did this windful come from? New property taxes from those evil newly constructed gentrified homes!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/01/BAGLFJ5IQC1.DTL&hw=san+francisco+budg
et&sn=020&sc=236
So yeah let's stop the madness let's burn all the gentrification out of the city, chase the
children out b/c that would leave more room for feces ridden streets and homeless people who have
no where to go b/c their program got cut.
Anonymous,
Can you please just make your point as clear and succinctly as possible?
Kurt,
First you said be specific. I was very specific. Now you want me to basically talk about this in 10 words or less. I guess nothing really satisfies you does it? Well the simple case is - your position and your defense of it doesn't make sense. (see above if you want details). All it seems that you can do is to focus on inflammetory rhetoric and tearing other people down to boost your ego as some sort of moral crusader. You, and people who think like you are hurting San Francisco because you refuse to see the big picture and think beyond getting everyone a free ride.
the anonymous poster.
Anonymous,
And you see the big picture, huh, big boy. I understand that property tax pays for some good things. So what?
I still think that the evictions should be stopped and that rent control is generally good and that adding high priced housing won't decrease prices. These are my main points, put concisely and clearly, something you can't do.
Hey there anonymous poster!
I'm sure I'm not alone when I write that your analyses have been very interesting and informative on the several posts you have commented on.
Please don't let ridiculous statements like: "property tax pays for some good things. So what?" put you off. You can answer and refute Kurt's beliefs until the cows come home and he will pretend you didn't do anything of the kind just to try and rile you up. Apparently this is his hobby. Sad.
Back to the general subject at hand...
Personally, I will not be living in any of the new towers in SoMa or Rincon Hill. However, I am very excited to see them go up. They will only add to the dynamism of San Francisco. Dense growth in the urban center of the city makes a lot of sense as a smart use of the scarce resource 'land'. The added population will require more services like restaurants, gyms, bookstores, grocery stores etc..that combined will employ many times the number of people currently employed in those areas near the towers. The pay from these jobs might even help some folks pay for their rent-controlled apartments....
Cameron,
You said: "You can answer and refute Kurt's beliefs until the cows come home."
Please share with the blog which belief of mine you refuted. I'd really like to know because in contrast to your accusation that I'm close minded, I feel I'm the opposite. Thanks.
KK
Kurt,
You've definately given me a good chuckle. Let's frame this differently, your internal perception of yourself (being an open minded person) does not match our external percepation (being close minded). You claim to be such yet you are unable to address any of the arguments directed specifically at you and stubbornly stick to the mantra "evictions bad, rent control good!". Your blind zealotry is unfortunate because that's what you seem to fall back on when you are actually confronted with facts. I think that I've provided a pretty decent view of the current real-estate world we live in supported by the facts that I have. I would love to see you tighten up your analysis and defend your position with facts, but so far all you've been able to do is to fall back on rhetoric. Because you do that how can you say that you're openminded?
the anonymous poster.
Anonymous,
I don't have a clue what you're even talking about. You and Cameron keep saying that you've refuted my arguments, but won't tell me which ones.
Rather than disparage me, why don't you clearly tell me what argument you've refuted. I really don't know.
Matt's main argument was that increasing housing would decrease housing prices. I believe I refuted the argument when I said that selling high-end houses caused gentrification, which would not necessarily decrease prices.
Other than this, I'm not sure we've had any real arguments. Please let me know if we have.
KK
Well here's the list of arguments refuted:
1. supply/demand doesn't apply to San Francisco Real estate (see above for initial link on this).
2. we should have zero evictions (evictions are bad for those being evicted - but those only effect a small proportion of San Franciscans. Not allowing people to buy homes and the outflow out of SF affects many more people)
3. rent control good! (see prior links refuting this - it impacts supply and drives up costs and actually benefits landlords not tenants)
4. Gentrification bad! (Property taxes pay for a huge chunk of everything you see in the city - golden gate park, homeless programs, Chris Daly's salary etc etc. Besides who wants to have their children play in urine/feces encrusted steps?)
5. Gentrification ='s higher prices ='s more gentrification (Click on link above to SFHomeBlog - big-day-for-housing comments post analyzing how this doesn't make sense).
and that's just the things I can think of in 15 minutes ... is that enough for you to chew on Kurt b/c there's more.
the anonymous poster
1. supply/demand doesn't apply to San Francisco Real estate (see above for initial link on this).
The link doesn't work.
2. we should have zero evictions (evictions are bad for those being evicted - but those only effect a small proportion of San Franciscans. Not allowing people to buy homes and the outflow out of SF affects many more people)
First, I never said we should have 0 evictions. Second, I never said we should not allow people to buy homes. Third, what is "outflow out of SF?"
3. rent control good! (see prior links refuting this - it impacts supply and drives up costs and actually benefits landlords not tenants)
Again, the links don't work. Yes, I understand that rent control impacts supply, I'm still for it. Don't get your point here.
4. Gentrification bad! (Property taxes pay for a huge chunk of everything you see in the city - golden gate park, homeless programs, Chris Daly's salary etc etc. Besides who wants to have their children play in urine/feces encrusted steps?)
Again, I don't disagree that gentrification increases property tax receipts. So far, you've refuted nothing I've said.
5. Gentrification ='s higher prices ='s more gentrification (Click on link above to SFHomeBlog - big-day-for-housing comments post analyzing how this doesn't make sense).
The link doesn't work. I'd really like to see this one. Here we might actually disagree.
and that's just the things I can think of in 15 minutes ... is that enough for you to chew on Kurt b/c there's more.
You post is retarded. You refuted nothing, but said a lot. Nice job.
KK
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home