The Bipartisan Cry of ‘Not in My Backyard’ (San Francisco: low income, rentals)

[HappyinCali]

This is a very good artiocle. A lot of the conclusions are common sense, but still it is interesting to see them all in one place

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/u...ipartisan.html

The more expensive the home people buy, Mr. Hall and Mr. Yoder find, the larger the increase in their likelihood of voting. That suggests that homeowners aren’t more likely to vote merely because they become invested in their communities. Their motivation also appears to grow as the value of their asset does.

One possible interpretation: “It’s not that you become more selfish, but you become more likely to translate selfishness into political action,” Mr. Hall said of homeowners. “Renters could be just as selfish, but they’re not getting their act together as a group to vote.”

A San Francisco ordinance requires developers of large residential projects to make a choice:

A. Devote a specified percentage of the planned budget to "low income" units.

OR

B. Contribute a higher percentage of the planned budget to a city fund that will be used to build low income housing somewhere else (not that that's actually happened, of course, but the fund is there).

To date, I'm told, every developer has chosen B. In other words, NO low-income housing has been included in any major residential development since that law took effect (not sure how long it's been on the books). There are two major projects in planning in my area, and both of those developers have chosen B, much to the relief of existing residents.

Say what they will, existing residents -- in SF like other areas -- are in favor of low-income housing, as long as it's built somewhere else.

[Des-Lab]

And that's a problem....


Why?


I'm a total NIMBY and absolutely unabashed and proud of it when it comes to low income and subsidized rentals.


I too, have nothing against it...in principle...


-As long as it's done...as mentioned....somewhere else. It's been proven time and time and time and time and time again that such a demographic not only has no respect for property, but they always bring all their problems with them. And so it becomes, by extension, everyone elses problems too. We shouldn't have to tolerate that. We WON'T tolerate that if we can help it. Look at what happened in places like Victorville, Palmdale, and Moreno Valley if you don't take my word for it.


Cluster them into their own separate designated areas. Everyone else shouldn't have to take the equity hit or mental strain of their BS including trash, graffiti, neglect, noise till 1AM, junk cars, and so on.

[marcopolo666]

Originally Posted by Des-Lab

Cluster them into their own separate designated areas.

Welcome to Warsaw, circa 1939/40 ...

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by marcopolo666

Welcome to Warsaw, circa 1939/40 ...

You are right leave it like Venezuela.

[payutenyodagimas]

why should a low income housing be in an expensive place? put them where it is really inexpensive

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas

why should a low income housing be in an expensive place? put them where it is really inexpensive

There are those that like Feel Good laws, that do nothing good, and those who want Do Good laws, and rarely see them.

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by Des-Lab

And that's a problem....


Why?


I'm a total NIMBY and absolutely unabashed and proud of it when it comes to low income and subsidized rentals.


I too, have nothing against it...in principle...


-As long as it's done...as mentioned....somewhere else. It's been proven time and time and time and time and time again that such a demographic not only has no respect for property, but they always bring all their problems with them. And so it becomes, by extension, everyone elses problems too. We shouldn't have to tolerate that. We WON'T tolerate that if we can help it. Look at what happened in places like Victorville, Palmdale, and Moreno Valley if you don't take my word for it.


Cluster them into their own separate designated areas. Everyone else shouldn't have to take the equity hit or mental strain of their BS including trash, graffiti, neglect, noise till 1AM, junk cars, and so on.

This.

[Elliott_CA]

Originally Posted by Des-Lab

Cluster them into their own separate designated areas.

Disagree. My opinion, from personal experience and observation, is that when you concentrate low income housing units together you get crime clusters. OTOH, when you scatter them across the city in different neighborhoods, one here, one there, there are a lot less problems. All neighborhoods, from the most upscale to the poorest, should have have at least some low income housing. Share the "burden," if you want to call it that.

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by Elliott_CA

Disagree. My opinion, from personal experience and observation, is that when you concentrate low income housing units together you get crime clusters. OTOH, when you scatter them across the city in different neighborhoods, one here, one there, there are a lot less problems. All neighborhoods, from the most upscale to the poorest, should have have at least some low income housing. Share the "burden," if you want to call it that.

You get crime clusters whereever you place them. London has implemented social programs based on your beliefs. Result: Still a disaster.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

You get crime clusters whereever you place them. London has implemented social programs based on your beliefs. Result: Still a disaster.

Sad but true. Their main problem is not where to live it is how to live. They don't want to change. Mind you some do, but usually they are not a problem as they seek aid. "Social Programs" are not what is needed unless it includes forced treatment to correct their desires that led to their problems to begin with. Never happen.