Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AftyOfTheUK t1_j9u8ctw wrote

>The non-low income units will all be “luxury” priced to make up for the low rents/sales for the low-income units.

Thats the entire point. The wealthier people will be subsidising the lower income units. That's literally the intention of the law, not a problem to be complained about.

3

kippypapa t1_j9utg2j wrote

It is a problem because there is no middle class housing. It means that aspiring to be middle class no longer becomes possible. These laws and similar start with the assumption that the poor will always be poor and that no change is ever possible in someone’s life, that there’s only rich and poor.

When you install policies like this, you pull rungs from the ladder. If you’re goal is to alleviate poverty, the best way of doing so is by making people’s labor more valuable. By keeping a mass of people in place, you devalue their individual labor because there’s always someone who will take the lowball wage offer. If housing were let to be dictated by the market, the poor would face a choice: upskill to make their labor more valuable or move to an area where their labor/cost of living calculation is in their favor. Over their lives, this ends up bettering them and reduces poverty. By removing incentives to do so, you keep people poor.

I’ve seen this a lot. I lived in LA and my neighbors all had some form of rent subsidy. None of the kids had an education and worked low wage jobs. Some who moved away ended up owning homes in other cities and gained wealth through appreciation hence reducing the wealth gap. Their kids all went to college because there were not enough low skill jobs where they went. In the end, the people “pushed” out had better lives and were less precarious financially than those who stayed.

We shouldn’t care about places: all this talk about displacement, erasure and gentrification. We should care about people. A feel good solution that appears to be nice to the poor ends up hurting them long term. We should incentivize people to move to locations where they are able to make financial and educational investments in themselves since self sufficieny is the best way to guard against the dangers of poverty. Many people on Reddit want government action in all aspects of life. My answer to that is we had 2 years with Trump, Republican Congress and conservative Supreme Court. The only thing preventing them from destroying safety nets was Trumps incompetence. Some day there will be a Trump who isn’t incompetent and that person will end safety nets. The people dependent on government at that time will face a harsh reality since they won’t have experience in self sufficiency.

1

AftyOfTheUK t1_j9vgijv wrote

>It is a problem because there is no middle class housing.

Middle Class in a city in San Francisco simply has different income requirements to other cities. All cities are different.

>These laws and similar start with the assumption that the poor will always be poor and that no change is ever possible in someone’s life

The laws have nothing to do with changing circumstances, they simply force everyone else to subsidise people who don't earn a lot of money.

>When you install policies like this, you pull rungs from the ladder.

I agree, I don't like affordable housing policies because they've fucked me over for most of my life. I've been renting, and paying out of the ass to rent, because the properties I'm renting are in the band that's subsidising affordable housing.

I'm 44 and don't own a house. A friend of mine bought an affordable unit in a neighbourhood I lived in over 15 years ago. He's got his house bought and paid for, completely paid off, yet I don't own one despite subsidizing him with both my taxes and increased rent.

1

kippypapa t1_j9vitgr wrote

Right, your living my exact same life almost. If I get a worse paying job and move to SF, I’d qualify for a below market rate condo or section 8 and be fine. I’ve honestly considered it but the BMR stuff in SF is a dumpster fire. I was living in LA, and as you say, paying tax and high rent so my neighbors could live cheaply.

A big draw of SF are the amenities. If you didn’t have rent control, section 8, and BMR, low income people would leave. That would mean fewer restaurants, fewer bars, clubs, cultural events, etc making it less attractive and more people would leave. Eventually, the city would find its balance between people, wages and business. The way we do it now, we create these imbalances where the rich get cheap labor, the poor get stuck and everyone else gets fucked. If we just let the free market work, we wouldn’t be in such a mess.

1