"I am definitely not the next [Ocasio-Cortez]. I am me."
December 20, 2019 8:51 AM Subscribe
Jackie Fielder is a DSA member, a San Francisco State ethnic studies lecturer, a 25-year-old queer woman of Mexican and indigenous (Lakota and Hidatsa) descent, a leader in the divestment movement, a cofounder of the San Francisco Public Bank Coalition, and an unhoused person who sleeps in her van when not crashing with friends. She's also running for a seat in the California State Senate, hoping to unseat incumbent Democrat Scott Wiener, author of controversial rezoning bill SB 50. Frank Hopper interviews her for Last Real Indians.
SF Weekly and Mission Local give more local political context.
SF Weekly and Mission Local give more local political context.
"Gentrify" Palo Alto and we can talk.
posted by PMdixon at 9:24 AM on December 20, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by PMdixon at 9:24 AM on December 20, 2019 [2 favorites]
I'm a big fan of less local control and more upzoning, so it's hard for me to see a problem with SB50 -- especially since the bill contains a number of measures to protect at-risk communities. The point of the bill is to upzone places like Palo Alto and Marin, and from the complaints on e.g. Palo Alto Online it sounds like it will do just that.
posted by crazy with stars at 9:51 AM on December 20, 2019 [8 favorites]
posted by crazy with stars at 9:51 AM on December 20, 2019 [8 favorites]
But California housing politics creates strange bedfellows. Probably the loudest voices of dissent against SB 50 right now are affluent homeowners who worry that it will bulldoze local control over housing allowances and imperil “historic character”—traditional concerns of Not In My Backyard adherents. Groups like Livable California, founded last year by Marin anti-growth activist Susan Kirsch (who recently told Palo Alto Weekly that she prefers to the milder word “problem” to “crisis” when it comes to housing), have found footing up and down the state.The above is from City Lab's Spring article on the subject of SB 50 and the suburbs who are opposed. I have zero sympathy - California's housing issues are perfect storm of issues hitting each other at once but fundamentally, the refusal by the landed to allow an increase in density is what has prolonged it.
posted by the_querulous_night at 9:55 AM on December 20, 2019 [7 favorites]
From crazy with stars' link:
Mayor Eric Filseth had also devoted most of the "State of the City" speech in February to criticizing SB 50, which he said effectively gives Sacramento the power to decide what local communities would look like.
Wiener pushed back against this narrative Friday. The bill, he said, largely defers to local height limits, though it waives local height limitations set below 45 feet within half a mile of transit hubs.
Are there that many places designated as transit hubs that this is actually going to allow a nontrivial number of new units to be built in affluent areas that have chosen to restrict growth through housing limits?
posted by PMdixon at 10:10 AM on December 20, 2019
Mayor Eric Filseth had also devoted most of the "State of the City" speech in February to criticizing SB 50, which he said effectively gives Sacramento the power to decide what local communities would look like.
Wiener pushed back against this narrative Friday. The bill, he said, largely defers to local height limits, though it waives local height limitations set below 45 feet within half a mile of transit hubs.
Are there that many places designated as transit hubs that this is actually going to allow a nontrivial number of new units to be built in affluent areas that have chosen to restrict growth through housing limits?
posted by PMdixon at 10:10 AM on December 20, 2019
Agreeing with the above support for SB 50. Incumbent Anthony Weiner's "real estate ties" are largely to nonprofit, mission-motivated affordable housing developers want to build dense affordable housing near public transit but are thwarted by local zoning that excludes multifamily units. Compare the dense housing development around Oakland's Fruitvale BART station to the single-family-only development around the North Berkeley BART station. SB 50 would overrule local NIMBY zoning and make transit-friendly dense development possible in both places.
I would be thrilled to see Jackie Fielder in Sacramento, and especially support her work on public banking, but she is going after the wrong seat. Weiner has been working tirelessly to get SB 50 passed through committee during the last two legislative sessions and will introduce it again next month. Primarying him from the left is is destructive to the interests of poor people who need affordable housing in California.
posted by mississippi at 10:17 AM on December 20, 2019 [11 favorites]
I would be thrilled to see Jackie Fielder in Sacramento, and especially support her work on public banking, but she is going after the wrong seat. Weiner has been working tirelessly to get SB 50 passed through committee during the last two legislative sessions and will introduce it again next month. Primarying him from the left is is destructive to the interests of poor people who need affordable housing in California.
posted by mississippi at 10:17 AM on December 20, 2019 [11 favorites]
I don't know if the intent was to put SB50 front and center in this topic, though Fielder is explicit about criticizing so maybe? Like a lot of people on the left half of California politics I think it's one of the few things that takes housing problems seriously enough to risk pissing upper middle class homeowners (a socioeconomic category that includes me). I immediately junk e-mails from primary candidates who promise to "maintain local control" as promising to represent the rich donor (small-c) conservative class and not the kind of people I want representing me.
Perspectives are going to be different in a minority community, of course. But I really have trouble believing any net good comes from breaking up the sate into communities and letting them try to come up with fair housing policy individually. That is what we have now and cements wealthy low density neighborhoods in place, as the ones with the better resources to fight development they don't like, while leaving poorer communities with the fallout of increased housing pressure and trying to solve a statewide problem locally.
The jaded part of me assumes she's criticizing him on this opportunistically--she wants the seat for sincere reasons and has zero chance if she cedes credit to him on one of the most promising left-of-center policy pushes in recent years.
Are there that many places designated as transit hubs that this is actually going to allow a nontrivial number of new units to be built in affluent areas that have chosen to restrict growth through housing limits?
Yes. I mostly know the peninsula but it's more than you might think. It's not as much as we need but it'd help. (And I hope be the "thin end of the wedge")
posted by mark k at 10:21 AM on December 20, 2019 [4 favorites]
Perspectives are going to be different in a minority community, of course. But I really have trouble believing any net good comes from breaking up the sate into communities and letting them try to come up with fair housing policy individually. That is what we have now and cements wealthy low density neighborhoods in place, as the ones with the better resources to fight development they don't like, while leaving poorer communities with the fallout of increased housing pressure and trying to solve a statewide problem locally.
The jaded part of me assumes she's criticizing him on this opportunistically--she wants the seat for sincere reasons and has zero chance if she cedes credit to him on one of the most promising left-of-center policy pushes in recent years.
Are there that many places designated as transit hubs that this is actually going to allow a nontrivial number of new units to be built in affluent areas that have chosen to restrict growth through housing limits?
Yes. I mostly know the peninsula but it's more than you might think. It's not as much as we need but it'd help. (And I hope be the "thin end of the wedge")
posted by mark k at 10:21 AM on December 20, 2019 [4 favorites]
(I should clarify: On the peninsula and even in the greater bay area, so much of the land is controlled by what you'd call "affluent communities" that they are the rule. Other communities are the exception with a tiny fraction of available space. And they all choose to restrict growth through housing limits. All of them.)
posted by mark k at 10:29 AM on December 20, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by mark k at 10:29 AM on December 20, 2019 [2 favorites]
I support increasing housing supply, but comments like "gentrification should be fast tracked" and "zero sympathy" are unhelpful to poor/old/queer/POC folks who have been displaced/evicted by gentrification, and these displacements hurt not just individuals but also their families and communities much more than middle-class people might expect. We need to be cognizant of these real issues and stop pretending that the magical invisible hand will fix everything.
At the same time, it's true that there are wealthy NIMBYs who have coopted anti-poverty/anti-gentrification language as a cover for their selfish desires. Obviously Jackie Fielder isn't one of them.
posted by splitpeasoup at 11:00 AM on December 20, 2019 [1 favorite]
At the same time, it's true that there are wealthy NIMBYs who have coopted anti-poverty/anti-gentrification language as a cover for their selfish desires. Obviously Jackie Fielder isn't one of them.
posted by splitpeasoup at 11:00 AM on December 20, 2019 [1 favorite]
I support increasing housing supply, but comments like "gentrification should be fast tracked" and "zero sympathy" are unhelpful to poor/old/queer/POC folks who have been displaced/evicted by gentrification, and these displacements hurt not just individuals but also their families and communities much more than middle-class people might expect.
I understand that, but they are already being hurt, and stopping SB50 will not help anyone that needs help. In fact it will make it worse, as more of those likely to be displaced will be displaced because there is very limited new supply.
Obviously Jackie Fielder isn't one of them.
'Desires' don't really matter if the outcomes are the same.
posted by The_Vegetables at 11:14 AM on December 20, 2019
I understand that, but they are already being hurt, and stopping SB50 will not help anyone that needs help. In fact it will make it worse, as more of those likely to be displaced will be displaced because there is very limited new supply.
Obviously Jackie Fielder isn't one of them.
'Desires' don't really matter if the outcomes are the same.
posted by The_Vegetables at 11:14 AM on December 20, 2019
The left's blindness on housing policy has flabbergasted me for years. The status quo is how we've gotten displacement and gentrification--upzoning Palo Alto isn't going to make anything worse.
Housing is so clearly a supply problem that I find it difficult to engage with socialists who believe otherwise. You can literally look at charts of population growth vs. housing construction and see how population growth has outpaced housing in a state like California for decades.
posted by Automocar at 11:14 AM on December 20, 2019 [8 favorites]
Housing is so clearly a supply problem that I find it difficult to engage with socialists who believe otherwise. You can literally look at charts of population growth vs. housing construction and see how population growth has outpaced housing in a state like California for decades.
posted by Automocar at 11:14 AM on December 20, 2019 [8 favorites]
It's important to note that what is called the "progressive" side is actually what would be called conservative anywhere but California, where they are socially progressive, but on policy, especially housing policy, the progressive side is conservative and virulently NIMBY. They are the (often white)(now wealthy) homeowners who are now millionaires as they have successfully managed to kill housing, over and over again. They are the kinds of people who hang up Black Lives Matters signs in their windows, and fight against any kind of housing policy that would allow Black people--or anyone, really--to live anywhere near them. I see this in my own neighborhood, which has one of the lowest rates of housing built over the LAST DECADE. Having attended community meetings, my neighbors are always fighting against everything, including projects that were 100 percent affordable for and meant for low-income and homeless seniors. But it was at one of these meetings that I once heard someone say, straight up, that they didn't want poor people to move into the neighborhood.
And that's what passes as "progressive" in San Francisco.
I want housing to be built. Almost all of my friends have left, and those who are still here are only here by the grace of our landlords. We'll have to leave too, and my husband was born and raised in this area. But as two creatives, we can't afford it. I say this as someone who has worked at tech companies, though not as a developer, so I've never managed to pull the six-figure salary that would maybe, maybe allow us to stay.
Finally, Jackie Fielder only moved to San Francisco last year, in late 2018. That doesn't sit well with this voter--it's too opportunistic. I don't always agree with Scott Weiner, and on a personal level, he irritates the heck out of me, but he walks the walk on housing. And it must be said that he was very involved in the community and his constituents when he was a supe—I literally saw him everywhere, including riding Muni (and not for the photo opp).
posted by hello my sockpuppet at 11:56 AM on December 20, 2019 [13 favorites]
And that's what passes as "progressive" in San Francisco.
I want housing to be built. Almost all of my friends have left, and those who are still here are only here by the grace of our landlords. We'll have to leave too, and my husband was born and raised in this area. But as two creatives, we can't afford it. I say this as someone who has worked at tech companies, though not as a developer, so I've never managed to pull the six-figure salary that would maybe, maybe allow us to stay.
Finally, Jackie Fielder only moved to San Francisco last year, in late 2018. That doesn't sit well with this voter--it's too opportunistic. I don't always agree with Scott Weiner, and on a personal level, he irritates the heck out of me, but he walks the walk on housing. And it must be said that he was very involved in the community and his constituents when he was a supe—I literally saw him everywhere, including riding Muni (and not for the photo opp).
posted by hello my sockpuppet at 11:56 AM on December 20, 2019 [13 favorites]
Not to be pedantic, but the phrase "Mexican and indigenous descent" (which the SF Weekly and Mission Local articles both use) decouples Mexican descent and indigenous descent, and that's not always accurate.
Many Mexicans are descended from the indigenous peoples of North America. The majority have mixed Spanish and indigenous heritage, but there are over 25 million indigenous people living in Mexico, many of whom maintain their languages and customs. There's a significant number of people in Mexico whose first language is not Spanish, but an indigenous language.
It's a particular irony how anti-migrant sentiment in the US often tries to paint Mexicans as not being American, when so many Mexicans have indigenous American heritage.
Regardless of her views, which you may or may not support, it's encouraging to see people with Native American heritage stepping forward to make their voices heard in government. I wish Fielder the very best in her campaign.
posted by vitout at 12:01 PM on December 20, 2019 [7 favorites]
Many Mexicans are descended from the indigenous peoples of North America. The majority have mixed Spanish and indigenous heritage, but there are over 25 million indigenous people living in Mexico, many of whom maintain their languages and customs. There's a significant number of people in Mexico whose first language is not Spanish, but an indigenous language.
It's a particular irony how anti-migrant sentiment in the US often tries to paint Mexicans as not being American, when so many Mexicans have indigenous American heritage.
Regardless of her views, which you may or may not support, it's encouraging to see people with Native American heritage stepping forward to make their voices heard in government. I wish Fielder the very best in her campaign.
posted by vitout at 12:01 PM on December 20, 2019 [7 favorites]
The article doesn’t mention why she’s primarying Scott Weiner, other than mentioning that he’s “ corporate-backed”. Does any other source explain why?
posted by Apocryphon at 12:37 PM on December 20, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by Apocryphon at 12:37 PM on December 20, 2019 [1 favorite]
@JackieFielder_: As someone who has slept in their car because she couldn’t find affordable housing, I am opposed to #SB50, which is a false market solution to a govt disinvestment problem. CA is the 6th largest economy in the world. There are more than enough resources here to house everyone.
@JohnBauters: As someone who has lived in their car and spent close to two decades working in #homeless shelters and as a public housing tenant attorney, I support #SB50, because this isn’t an “either-or” — we need BOTH 100% affordable/social #housing and market development.
My concern is that I've yet to see anyone present anything resembling a convincing plan for a non-market public housing plan that begins to approach the scale of what is needed to address the crisis today. If your argument is really both that markets have no role here and we need massive government investment in housing, you're doing one of two things. You can be make the serious argument that the government should immediately invest a couple trillion dollars in housing, which is what it costs to produce the millions of homes we need statewide; and if that's what you want to do, then let's talk about how it's funded and implemented, how the housing will be allocated, and how you're going to make it happen, because you're proposing something giant and should be able to make a case for its realistic achievement. Or, alternatively, you just aspirationally want that to happen in a theoretical sense and aren't actually going to get more housing built. If you want to make the case that the way forward is a non-market solution of government investment, then it's on you to demonstrate that your process will result in a substantial number of new homes commensurate with what we need.
And even if you want that non-market solution, you're still going to need to build homes in places where people refuse to have new neighbors. You're stuck with that fundamental problem whether its real estate developers or government doing the investing.
posted by zachlipton at 12:52 PM on December 20, 2019 [5 favorites]
@JohnBauters: As someone who has lived in their car and spent close to two decades working in #homeless shelters and as a public housing tenant attorney, I support #SB50, because this isn’t an “either-or” — we need BOTH 100% affordable/social #housing and market development.
My concern is that I've yet to see anyone present anything resembling a convincing plan for a non-market public housing plan that begins to approach the scale of what is needed to address the crisis today. If your argument is really both that markets have no role here and we need massive government investment in housing, you're doing one of two things. You can be make the serious argument that the government should immediately invest a couple trillion dollars in housing, which is what it costs to produce the millions of homes we need statewide; and if that's what you want to do, then let's talk about how it's funded and implemented, how the housing will be allocated, and how you're going to make it happen, because you're proposing something giant and should be able to make a case for its realistic achievement. Or, alternatively, you just aspirationally want that to happen in a theoretical sense and aren't actually going to get more housing built. If you want to make the case that the way forward is a non-market solution of government investment, then it's on you to demonstrate that your process will result in a substantial number of new homes commensurate with what we need.
And even if you want that non-market solution, you're still going to need to build homes in places where people refuse to have new neighbors. You're stuck with that fundamental problem whether its real estate developers or government doing the investing.
posted by zachlipton at 12:52 PM on December 20, 2019 [5 favorites]
At this point it feels like the only non-market solution would be a revolutionary junta declaring a state of emergency and eminent domaining the hell out of all these affluent bedroom communities and rushing construction PRC style
posted by Apocryphon at 12:54 PM on December 20, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by Apocryphon at 12:54 PM on December 20, 2019 [1 favorite]
Are there that many places designated as transit hubs that this is actually going to allow a nontrivial number of new units to be built in affluent areas that have chosen to restrict growth through housing limits?
These guys suggest that this affects around 6000 acres in each of SF, Santa Clara, LA and San Diego counties, and another 2000 acres in each of Sac, Alameda and San Mateo. Plus another 2000 acres or so in Contra Costa, Orange and Ventura combined. That's 30K acres; about as much land as the city of San Francisco total. At 50 units per acre as a guesstimate, that's 1.5 million more units. Obviously just because the law permits denser development doesn't mean it'll spring up overnight, or in all possible locations, or to maximum possible density.
That's just the headline part; the other two components affect "job dense" areas (removing density limits and reducing parking requirements, but keeping height limits) and other single detached zoning areas (permitting up to 4 units per parcel within existing building sizes). These would have much smaller potentials for increased density, but theoretically the change from SFD to fourplex would permit quadrupling of density. The same analysis I linked above identified job rich areas as including around 220K acres in LA/Orange, 50K each in Sac and the Inland Empire, 75K in San Diego, and 130K in the Bay Area. Over half a million acres, give or take.
As someone who has slept in their car because she couldn’t find affordable housing, I am opposed to #SB50, which is a false market solution to a govt disinvestment problem. CA is the 6th largest economy in the world. There are more than enough resources here to house everyone.
If Socialist Claus flew down the chimney in California next week to give the state government the trillions of dollars and millions of votes of political will needed to build as much affordable housing as is needed, then the very next step that would have to happen is... they would have to get local zoning approval for these affordable housing projects, which means that the obstructive local laws that block dense construction in the areas best suited for it would have to be overturned. Which would require the passage of a bill that looks remarkably like SB50.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 1:47 PM on December 20, 2019 [8 favorites]
These guys suggest that this affects around 6000 acres in each of SF, Santa Clara, LA and San Diego counties, and another 2000 acres in each of Sac, Alameda and San Mateo. Plus another 2000 acres or so in Contra Costa, Orange and Ventura combined. That's 30K acres; about as much land as the city of San Francisco total. At 50 units per acre as a guesstimate, that's 1.5 million more units. Obviously just because the law permits denser development doesn't mean it'll spring up overnight, or in all possible locations, or to maximum possible density.
That's just the headline part; the other two components affect "job dense" areas (removing density limits and reducing parking requirements, but keeping height limits) and other single detached zoning areas (permitting up to 4 units per parcel within existing building sizes). These would have much smaller potentials for increased density, but theoretically the change from SFD to fourplex would permit quadrupling of density. The same analysis I linked above identified job rich areas as including around 220K acres in LA/Orange, 50K each in Sac and the Inland Empire, 75K in San Diego, and 130K in the Bay Area. Over half a million acres, give or take.
As someone who has slept in their car because she couldn’t find affordable housing, I am opposed to #SB50, which is a false market solution to a govt disinvestment problem. CA is the 6th largest economy in the world. There are more than enough resources here to house everyone.
If Socialist Claus flew down the chimney in California next week to give the state government the trillions of dollars and millions of votes of political will needed to build as much affordable housing as is needed, then the very next step that would have to happen is... they would have to get local zoning approval for these affordable housing projects, which means that the obstructive local laws that block dense construction in the areas best suited for it would have to be overturned. Which would require the passage of a bill that looks remarkably like SB50.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 1:47 PM on December 20, 2019 [8 favorites]
It's important to note that what is called the "progressive" side is actually what would be called conservative anywhere but California
SO MUCH THIS. I remember when Gavin Newsom (D) was running against Matt Gonzalez (Green) for the mayorship of SF and it was brought into stark relief how, like, super-conservative the Dems were vs. the Green Party which I wasn't a fan of at the national level but at the local level had far more progressive policy points.
posted by grumpybear69 at 1:49 PM on December 20, 2019
SO MUCH THIS. I remember when Gavin Newsom (D) was running against Matt Gonzalez (Green) for the mayorship of SF and it was brought into stark relief how, like, super-conservative the Dems were vs. the Green Party which I wasn't a fan of at the national level but at the local level had far more progressive policy points.
posted by grumpybear69 at 1:49 PM on December 20, 2019
I was thinking about doing in a FPP about Martin v. City of Boise, which intersects with many of the issues and attitudes people are talking about here.
If you are curious about the degree to which people are willing to show their entire ass when it comes to being heartless about people in need of housing in California, scroll down to the bottom of this (CW: a breathtaking amount of racism)
posted by 99_ at 1:57 PM on December 20, 2019 [2 favorites]
If you are curious about the degree to which people are willing to show their entire ass when it comes to being heartless about people in need of housing in California, scroll down to the bottom of this (CW: a breathtaking amount of racism)
posted by 99_ at 1:57 PM on December 20, 2019 [2 favorites]
the DSA shouldn't be in bed with the billionaires on it.
billionaires are anti-development?
millionaires, maybe
posted by atoxyl at 3:20 PM on December 20, 2019
billionaires are anti-development?
millionaires, maybe
posted by atoxyl at 3:20 PM on December 20, 2019
(I'm sure there are in fact billionaires who oppose development around their personal property. If it's not obvious the distinction I'm actually trying to make is between the kind of people who own million dollar homes and the kind of people whose occupation is "real estate developer." If you're conflating those categories you're going to have trouble understanding where left wing opposition to development bills comes from.)
posted by atoxyl at 3:28 PM on December 20, 2019
posted by atoxyl at 3:28 PM on December 20, 2019
My last comment on this, but obviously, I have a lot of opinions: a true progressive in the Bay Area (or in California) would go after the third rail of housing politics: Prop. 13.
I wasn't even born when this came into effect, but Prop. 13 has shaped my entire adult life in this state.
posted by hello my sockpuppet at 3:37 PM on December 20, 2019 [7 favorites]
I wasn't even born when this came into effect, but Prop. 13 has shaped my entire adult life in this state.
posted by hello my sockpuppet at 3:37 PM on December 20, 2019 [7 favorites]
I agree that prop 13 would be considered a parody of "got mine fuck you" if it didn't already exist, but does it really have that much effect on the raw number of units?
posted by PMdixon at 3:48 PM on December 20, 2019
posted by PMdixon at 3:48 PM on December 20, 2019
Sockpuppet, I agree with you 100% on Proposition 13, and we are likely to get to vote on a referendum at least reforming if not abolishing it in November. I think rising property taxes will slow growth in the cost of housing and, over time, make existing market housing more affordable.
Three things, though: First, eliminating Proposition 13's crazy property tax break would probably slow new market-rate construction, at least in the short term, which would contribute somewhat to the housing shortage, at least in the short term.
Second, I just got a flier in the mail from a coalition of minority-owned small businesses, mostly organized in NAACP branches, that don't want sane commercial property taxes restored and are defending Proposition 13. I think they're dead wrong, but who's on each side of the issue gets complicated again!
Third, eliminating Proposition 13 would be great for state and especially county revenues, some of which would undoubtedly stimulate construction of new affordable housing, but at Homeboy Trouble noted above, you still need to get rid of the NIMBY zoning barriers to make it work. We actually succeeded with SB 35, also sponsored by Wiener and passed two years ago, which is beginning to speed affordable development. We need HB 50, too.
posted by mississippi at 3:58 PM on December 20, 2019
Three things, though: First, eliminating Proposition 13's crazy property tax break would probably slow new market-rate construction, at least in the short term, which would contribute somewhat to the housing shortage, at least in the short term.
Second, I just got a flier in the mail from a coalition of minority-owned small businesses, mostly organized in NAACP branches, that don't want sane commercial property taxes restored and are defending Proposition 13. I think they're dead wrong, but who's on each side of the issue gets complicated again!
Third, eliminating Proposition 13 would be great for state and especially county revenues, some of which would undoubtedly stimulate construction of new affordable housing, but at Homeboy Trouble noted above, you still need to get rid of the NIMBY zoning barriers to make it work. We actually succeeded with SB 35, also sponsored by Wiener and passed two years ago, which is beginning to speed affordable development. We need HB 50, too.
posted by mississippi at 3:58 PM on December 20, 2019
> At this point it feels like the only non-market solution would be a revolutionary junta declaring a state of emergency and eminent domaining the hell out of all these affluent bedroom communities and rushing construction PRC style
why do we have to get the state involved?
no, really, why do we have to get the state involved? there are more vacant housing units in the bay area than there are homeless people. yes, certainly, the bay area will in the long term need a large amount of public housing, but in the short term it’s possible to convert the housing crisis into a mere housing problem through systematically occupying vacant investor-owned properties.
if you’re not in the bay area and can’t show up to help the community defend the house that moms 4 housing has occupied, you can still help out by donating money to moms 4 housing.
if you are not actually interested in addressing the housing crisis but instead just enjoy bickering about the housing crisis on the Internet — if you’d rather just have yet another round of “liberal solutions don’t work because the market prefers to undersupply housing” / “socialist solutions can’t work because they’re too expensive!”) feel free to not lend your money or your time to moms 4 housing.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 4:21 PM on December 20, 2019 [5 favorites]
why do we have to get the state involved?
no, really, why do we have to get the state involved? there are more vacant housing units in the bay area than there are homeless people. yes, certainly, the bay area will in the long term need a large amount of public housing, but in the short term it’s possible to convert the housing crisis into a mere housing problem through systematically occupying vacant investor-owned properties.
if you’re not in the bay area and can’t show up to help the community defend the house that moms 4 housing has occupied, you can still help out by donating money to moms 4 housing.
if you are not actually interested in addressing the housing crisis but instead just enjoy bickering about the housing crisis on the Internet — if you’d rather just have yet another round of “liberal solutions don’t work because the market prefers to undersupply housing” / “socialist solutions can’t work because they’re too expensive!”) feel free to not lend your money or your time to moms 4 housing.
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 4:21 PM on December 20, 2019 [5 favorites]
Whether it's an effective strategy is another question. I don't really want to get too deep into that here - because it's complicated - except to say that I think people are probably correct to think that a "market solution" by itself is not enough. The best way to put that conclusion into action is another story.
posted by atoxyl at 4:21 PM on December 20, 2019
posted by atoxyl at 4:21 PM on December 20, 2019
I get that the DSA is anticapitalist, but if the positions they take hurt the poor
I mean, presumably they don't think that? Or at least they don't trust that the proposed market solutions will do any better. They might be wrong, but I feel like you are approaching this with the assumption that people are already on the same page as you about how things are likely to work out, and just... taking positions to be spiteful? Which is not the case.
posted by atoxyl at 4:29 PM on December 20, 2019 [1 favorite]
I mean, presumably they don't think that? Or at least they don't trust that the proposed market solutions will do any better. They might be wrong, but I feel like you are approaching this with the assumption that people are already on the same page as you about how things are likely to work out, and just... taking positions to be spiteful? Which is not the case.
posted by atoxyl at 4:29 PM on December 20, 2019 [1 favorite]
Thanks for pointing out viable alternatives to market-based solutions in this thread! That is very helpful.
posted by Apocryphon at 5:24 PM on December 20, 2019
posted by Apocryphon at 5:24 PM on December 20, 2019
OK I just typed and erased a bunch of comments on both Weiner and why he sucks (with a side helping of Newsom b.s.) and then a bunch of comments on SB50 and why fast-tracking "supply" is the least useful of the proposed solutions. I bear profound ill-will for Weiner's shitty politics so I am delighted that there's a candidate primarying him.
Anyway, you know what's a better fast track strategy than SB50. Preventing the conversion of affordable units to market rate from the expiration of Low Income Housing Tax Credits. And for building more units, incentivizing private developers to build truly affordable housing is a chump's game because the market will never make housing for poor people. Incentivizing housing within the private market still views housing as an investment, whether a safe or speculative investment. We need PHIMBYs not YIMBYs. Public housing in my backyard.
posted by spamandkimchi at 5:27 PM on December 20, 2019 [7 favorites]
Anyway, you know what's a better fast track strategy than SB50. Preventing the conversion of affordable units to market rate from the expiration of Low Income Housing Tax Credits. And for building more units, incentivizing private developers to build truly affordable housing is a chump's game because the market will never make housing for poor people. Incentivizing housing within the private market still views housing as an investment, whether a safe or speculative investment. We need PHIMBYs not YIMBYs. Public housing in my backyard.
posted by spamandkimchi at 5:27 PM on December 20, 2019 [7 favorites]
In the expensive parts of California, the housing crisis is not merely lack of housing for poor people. It's lack of housing for middle income people. People well over the national median of income can't survive in the bay area, dealing with shared living spaces, long commutes. and extra working hours. Proposals that help the homeless and poor are great, since they'd help the homeless and poor, but they wouldn't solve the housing crisis.
posted by mark k at 8:32 PM on December 20, 2019
posted by mark k at 8:32 PM on December 20, 2019
Thanks for pointing out viable alternatives to market-based solutions in this thread! That is very helpful.
I am not arguing a position on development in this thread. I am suggesting that a few commenters are addressing the issue in a way that suggests they have a limited concept of how people on the other side think about it.
posted by atoxyl at 9:03 PM on December 20, 2019
I am not arguing a position on development in this thread. I am suggesting that a few commenters are addressing the issue in a way that suggests they have a limited concept of how people on the other side think about it.
posted by atoxyl at 9:03 PM on December 20, 2019
Just building more housing in California would almost certainly be good for me! And I suspect a few people in this thread might have strong opinions about it because they are (also) middle-income people confronting the California housing market. My point is about the discussion itself, that "why do these supposed socialists take positions that hurt the poor?" is either an obnoxious rhetorical question or just not a very good regular question.
posted by atoxyl at 9:11 PM on December 20, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by atoxyl at 9:11 PM on December 20, 2019 [1 favorite]
The stupid bickering doesn't interest me, but what does is seeing a young, educated American, one who lives an authentic life most young Americans live, go run for office — and if that doesn't resonate with voters today, it will tomorrow. No amount of lobbying from real estate and tech companies will change the reality of young people whose lives aren't getting better, but better policies might help, and that's only going to come from politicians who aren't bought out.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:04 PM on December 20, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:04 PM on December 20, 2019 [1 favorite]
fast-tracking "supply" is the least useful of the proposed solutions
Most people who pull out the "California is having a housing crisis because it is short 3.5 million homes" factoid don't usually then mention where that massive number always comes from: an intentionally misleading, developer-friendly 2016 study put out by your friends at McKinsey (yes, that McKinsey) which they got by taking what the state housing department had recommended (180k new homes per year between 2015-2025) and then basically just shrugging their shoulders and doubling it.
Yes, California needs more affordable homes, but studies like the McKinsey one overstate the amount of construction needed to lobby for fast-tracked upzoning, which hasn't been proven to lead to more affordable housing for moderate to low income people. As we saw in Chicago, the one thing we do know it leads to is land in metros becoming extremely more valuable, and thus results in fast-tracked investment luxe condos and fast-tracked evictions for existing low income renters.
California housing advocates and tenants unions generally believe the crisis should be alleviated via increased public housing, vacancy taxes, killing the generational landed gentry-creating abomination called Prop 13, and greatly curtailing (if not outright banning) homeshare services like Airbnb. And yes, by building more housing - but not at the expense of the state's most vulnerable, whose centrally-located rental units are the first to get picked off by venture capital when upzoning makes the land they're on exponentially more valuable.
posted by joechip at 1:38 PM on December 21, 2019 [7 favorites]
Most people who pull out the "California is having a housing crisis because it is short 3.5 million homes" factoid don't usually then mention where that massive number always comes from: an intentionally misleading, developer-friendly 2016 study put out by your friends at McKinsey (yes, that McKinsey) which they got by taking what the state housing department had recommended (180k new homes per year between 2015-2025) and then basically just shrugging their shoulders and doubling it.
Yes, California needs more affordable homes, but studies like the McKinsey one overstate the amount of construction needed to lobby for fast-tracked upzoning, which hasn't been proven to lead to more affordable housing for moderate to low income people. As we saw in Chicago, the one thing we do know it leads to is land in metros becoming extremely more valuable, and thus results in fast-tracked investment luxe condos and fast-tracked evictions for existing low income renters.
California housing advocates and tenants unions generally believe the crisis should be alleviated via increased public housing, vacancy taxes, killing the generational landed gentry-creating abomination called Prop 13, and greatly curtailing (if not outright banning) homeshare services like Airbnb. And yes, by building more housing - but not at the expense of the state's most vulnerable, whose centrally-located rental units are the first to get picked off by venture capital when upzoning makes the land they're on exponentially more valuable.
posted by joechip at 1:38 PM on December 21, 2019 [7 favorites]
Move to Iowa! Unemployment is low, as is cost of housing and transportation. Winters suck if youre used to California weather, but you can’t have everything, right?
Truthfully, while Iowa is a purple state the current Iowa government is almost entirely Trumpist shitbags, so we could use some help changing the tide and a few like- minded Mefites can always help the cause.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 4:15 PM on December 22, 2019
Truthfully, while Iowa is a purple state the current Iowa government is almost entirely Trumpist shitbags, so we could use some help changing the tide and a few like- minded Mefites can always help the cause.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 4:15 PM on December 22, 2019
That's a really nice sentiment, but between the numbers joechip found citing roughly 150k/yr demand projected by the CA housing authority and what numbers I was able to find for total number of vacant and annual new housing units across Iowa seemingly in the low 5 figures, I don't know if that has a lot of relevance to the housing crisis as a systemic issue, ya know? That is really sweet of you tho!
posted by PMdixon at 5:04 AM on December 23, 2019
posted by PMdixon at 5:04 AM on December 23, 2019
« Older The Gerrymanderer’s Daughter | Fascism is synonymous with backsliding and... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:02 AM on December 20, 2019 [9 favorites]