Occupy Pete's Harbor

By tovarichpeter   Follow   Sun, 2 Dec 2012, 10:10am   231 views   2 comments
In South San Francisco CA 94080   Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  


Viewing Comments 1-2 of 2     Last »     See most liked comments

  1. Peter P

    Befriend (5)
    139 threads

    1   11:12am Sun 2 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected  

    Redevelopment sounds good to me.

  2. curious2

    Befriend (4)
    120 threads

    2   3:33pm Sun 2 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Any development in the SF Bay area becomes controversial because the regulatory structure is designed to maximize markups that can get shared out to political campaigns and community organizing. If we had good quality standards (requiring safety and sound design), without maximum quantity restrictions, then the market would quickly create plenty of supply and many jobs along the way. Instead, we have quantity restrictions, with the result that only "upscale" (Realtorspeak for overpriced junk) can get built, and that gets taxed further to pay for "affordable" (below market rate) housing that gets rationed out to politicians' nephews. I can understand the owners want to develop the property to its most valuable use, and the residents want a cheap place to live. Alas neither side proposes to solve the real problem, which is the same restrictions that prevent development are the same restrictions that make housing unaffordable. The owners want their profit without competition from deregulation, and the renters want their space without having to buy anything, so the familiar battle lines are drawn and the game plays out like football: words will be exchanged and intercepted, one side will "win" and the other will lose, and everyone pays.

tovarichpeter is moderator of this thread.



Watch comments by email
Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 4 milliseconds to create.