« prev   random   next »
▲
2
1
▼

One San Francisco lawmaker wants more affordable housing. Cue the fury from NIMBY leftists.

By Patrick following x   2018 Apr 23, 9:10pm 2,172 views   21 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-the-greenwashed-liberal-gentry-keep-out-the-rabble/

California State Senator Scott Wiener, a Democrat representing San Francisco, is an avowed progressive who has come up with a startling new doctrine to advance his leftist cause—the law of supply and demand.

For sure, Wiener is nobody’s idea of a conservative or right-winger. He ticks the lefty box on everything from recycling to transgender rights to opposing tax cuts. So why, then, was Wiener’s recent housing legislation, Senate Bill 827, fiercely opposed by the Sierra Club, which was joined by other progressive groups? And why was it voted down by Wiener’s Democratic colleagues in Sacramento?

The answer to those questions reveals a deep split not only in the Democratic Party, but also in the left overall. To put the matter bluntly: should progressivism serve the masses or the elites? Today, the elites are enjoying the lion’s share of progressive gains—and that’s what Wiener wants to change.
1   tovarichpeter   ignore (2)   2018 Apr 27, 5:21pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

ALL of the Democratic candidates for governor oppose SB 827. That is why I am writing in Scott Wieners name. Affordable housing is THE issue in California.
2   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2018 Apr 27, 5:38pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

That's a generation battle. Boomers trying to prevent anyone else access to what they have.
The simple fact that someone made that proposal speaks volume about the on-going changes.
3   tovarichpeter   ignore (2)   2018 Apr 27, 6:36pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

And not only did all the Democrats running for governor oppose SB 827, SURPRISE, all of them own or more than one house and directly benefit financially from the CA housing shortage! But curiously this is not, legally, a conflict of interest.
4   Patrick   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 27, 6:44pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

tovarichpeter says
ALL of the Democratic candidates for governor oppose SB 827. That is why I am writing in Scott Wieners name. Affordable housing is THE issue in California.


@tovarichpeter I like this strategy. I may also write in Scott Wiener's name.
5   TrumpingTits   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 27, 9:59pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

As much as I have come to despise the California initiative process, this issue is as good as any candidate to take directly to the voters as Proposition Fuck NIMBYs.

Of course, the homeowners will outvote the non-homeowners. Definitely outspend them.

But it sure would be one Battle Royale!
6   georgeliberte   ignore (0)   2018 Apr 28, 6:41am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

"Today, the elites are enjoying the lion’s share of progressive gains" That is what I ague affirmative action, hiring and admission quotas are: entitlements of wealthy and [politically powerful members of 'minority' groups. So they had to develop new jargon (and the left specializes in this; often redefining words to conflate them with far worse actual meanings. Example any sexual advance is now rape.Several other examples are at my worksite they gave classes on racial equity, which means 'minority' group members must be give special privileges and advantages to 'equal out' historical and inherent racism. You know,white privilege. The reality is at my worksite (Social Services), these 'historically oppressed groups' already have the upper-hand in promotion, etc. It is unlikely that there will ever be a time where things are admitted to be 'equaled out' or that the pendulum has swung the other way.
7   georgeliberte   ignore (0)   2018 Apr 28, 7:13am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I would also add Rent Control, Section 8, and Prop 13 as factors adding to the housing shortage and cost. All designed to preserve the privilege of the few at the cost to the many less fortunate. All three are in fact forms of property entitlement.
8   marcus   ignore (7)   2018 Apr 28, 7:43am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I blame prop 13. Anyone that ownes their home (or has a mortgage - technically owns), is going to naturally be opposed to removing this subsidy to people that already own, in opposition to those that don't yet own.
9   marcus   ignore (7)   2018 Apr 28, 7:55am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

IF they end up being allowed to build high rises near public trans, in San Fran, I'm sure it's a good thing. But I doubt that it would lowers costs noticeably if at all, and also, this would be new housing for the elite liberals. So don't kid yourself. This is between the elites liberals and the other elite liberals. Possibly libertarians on the opposed side.

The progressive claim makes an interesting thesis, but I don't buy it. It sounds about as likely as this.

georgeliberte says
That is what I ague affirmative action, hiring and admission quotas are: entitlements of wealthy and [politically powerful members of 'minority' groups.


Not that I am particularly in favor of affirmative action for med school admissions. For lawyers, it maybe makes sense.

I guess to the extent that everyone is progressive in San Fran, or says they are, it makes sense to blame anything you don't like on progressives.
10   marcus   ignore (7)   2018 Apr 28, 8:00am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
going to naturally be opposed to removing this subsidy


Btw,.. very understandably in many cases too. Because they bought in at an inflated price that reflects the future property tax subsidy. So if they bought at all recently, they understandably would see ending it as very unfair to them. As for the people that have owned for a long time, well everyone understands where they're coming from.
11   Patrick   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 28, 10:24am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
I blame prop 13. Anyone that ones their home (or has a mortgage - technically owns), is going to naturally be opposed to removing this subsidy to people that already own, in opposition to those that don't yet own.


I agree with you @marcus

Prop 13 is a massive giveaway to the rich and to corporations. If Prop 13 were really about protecting poor old grannie from being kicked out by property tax increases, it would have a means test. In any case, grannie can pay the tax just by deferring it until she dies and the property is sold or transferred.

Note that corporations do not necessarily ever die, so they get to evade property tax forever and that loss of government revenue gets made up by California's especially high income tax and sales tax. This is just the opposite of economic efficiency. We want to encourage work and commerce, and discourage non-productive squatting and rent-seeking.
12   tovarichpeter   ignore (2)   2018 Apr 28, 10:35am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I also agree with Marcus. If you buy a house in CA today you are literally subsidizing people who bought a house in CA ten years ago.
13   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2018 Apr 28, 10:51am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Patrick says
Note that corporations do not necessarily ever die, so they get to evade property tax forever and that loss of government revenue gets made up by California's especially high income tax and sales tax. This is just the opposite of economic efficiency. We want to encourage work and commerce, and discourage non-productive squatting and rent-seeking

Then there is the IL model where some towns now pay 5% a year in property taxes-yup 5% and no cap. Pehaps reform would be to allow one single dwelling under prop13 and exempt commercial and non residential properties.
14   tovarichpeter   ignore (2)   2018 Apr 28, 10:59am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

lostand confused says
Patrick says
Note that corporations do not necessarily ever die, so they get to evade property tax forever and that loss of government revenue gets made up by California's especially high income tax and sales tax. This is just the opposite of economic efficiency. We want to encourage work and commerce, and discourage non-productive squatting and rent-seeking




Very good point. Actually it might be a good idea to link repeal of prop 13 with a reduction is income and sales taxes.
15   Strategist   ignore (2)   2018 Apr 28, 11:23am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

lostand confused says
Then there is the IL model where some towns now pay 5% a year in property taxes-yup 5% and no cap.


Wow. That would make California homes cheaper than Illinois homes. I'd rather pay that extra 5% towards the mortgage principal than to useless bureaucrats and their pensions.
16   tovarichpeter   ignore (2)   2018 Apr 28, 12:08pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Why do we allow city and county governments in the Bay Area to spend millions of dollars to attract even more industry and jobs here. Our unemployment rate is at a record low. We don’t have a shortage of jobs, we have a shortage of housing for people who have jobs here. Shouldn’t this money be used to relieve the housing shortage instead of aggravating it.
17   Patrick   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 28, 12:15pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

lostand confused says
Then there is the IL model where some towns now pay 5% a year in property taxes-yup 5% and no cap.


Might be worth it if we could get big enough reductions in income tax and sales tax.

I would support a Constitutional limit on the total amount of tax from all sources though.

tovarichpeter says
Why do we allow city and county governments in the Bay Area to spend millions of dollars to attract even more industry and jobs here. Our unemployment rate is at a record low. We don’t have a shortage of jobs, we have a shortage of housing for people who have jobs here. Shouldn’t this money be used to relieve the housing shortage instead of aggravating it.


Good point. The Bay Area actually has too many jobs.

We should not spend anything to attract more jobs until housing prices come down. But landlords and owners really love that huge ongoing transfer of wealth from VCs to their bottom lines via local salaries, so it's politically hard.
18   TrumpingTits   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 28, 2:49pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

tovarichpeter says
Very good point. Actually it might be a good idea to link repeal of prop 13 with a reduction is income and sales taxes


Why not go for full broke with an LVT that ABOLISHES income and sales taxation?
19   marcus   ignore (7)   2018 Apr 28, 2:50pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Patrick says
We want to encourage work and commerce, and discourage non-productive squatting and rent-seeking.


I believe there is going to be a so called "split roll" proposition on Novembers ballot that would preserve prop 13 for housing, but cause reassessments for commercial property.

Not sure if it affects owners of rental housing. Probably not, it should though, giving the govt their cut of the increased rents.

This could be interesting. If the govt gets a big bump in revenues, I'd still like to see pressure on some new pension reforms (such as capping them at some level), and it would be nice if some of the gains go to making state colleges a little more affordable. I think they were saying 60% of the billions in increased revenues go to local and 40% to state. Good for the people.
20   TrumpingTits   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 28, 3:17pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
Not sure if it affects owners of rental housing. Probably not, it should though, giving the govt their cut of the increased rents


A LOT of landlords have their housing owned by LLCs and S Corps these days. For several reasons, not the least of which is ease of selling the corporate entities vs doing real estate transactions. The higher value of the entities because they have the Prop 13 lock in. And to keep the lawyers from taking everything else after being sued for millions because a tenant blew himself up operating his own methlab on the property or such.
21   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2018 Apr 28, 4:00pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Patrick says
Might be worth it if we could get big enough reductions in income tax and sales tax

Yeah but that is not based on purchase price, but assement of current price. You lose your job, get sick or have cancer-you are on the streets. Then there are all other taxes, state tax, local tax, sales tax etc etc.


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions