And then there were two... (Boston: buyers, luxury, to live in)

[WestieWhitie]

So spending six figures on every single tenant just to get them to move out of the three unit shack you bought and want to replace with a larger structure, because you’re essentially forced to extend their lease indefinitely and cannot simply ask them to move out once the existing lease is up, has no effect on new construction? And not being able to raise rent at all because politburo says so has no effect on new construction? Are there any other infinite wisdoms of yours you would like to share?

Originally Posted by timberline742

Yes, built out, there is very little open space to build.

And why would they never be able to recoup their investments? You apparently do not understand, despite my telling you time and time again, that the rent control system does not apply to new construction. It has ZERO IMPACT ON WHAT NEW CONSTRUCTION CAN CHARGE FOR RENT.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by WestieWhitie

So spending six figures on every single tenant just to get them to move out of the three unit shack you bought and want to replace with a larger structure, because you’re essentially forced to extend their lease indefinitely and cannot simply ask them to move out once the existing lease is up, has no effect on new construction? And not being able to raise rent at all because politburo says so has no effect on new construction? Are there any other infinite wisdoms of yours you would like to share?

Who said you can't raise rent? You can. They were getting $12k a month for that "shack". Rents were being raised.

And if it's new construction rent control doesn't apply. Which is why the relative pocket change was paid here and it in no way hindered new construction.

So to answer, no, it doesn't. For the 100th time. In fact, if anything, it encourages new construction.

You are welcome.

[WestieWhitie]

https://sfrb.org/topic-no-051-years-...wable-increase oh wise one, applicable to all non-commercial properties in SF. So let’s try again - as a developer, how will your break-even rent be affected if you’re unable to raise rent by more than the minuscule amount politburo deems acceptable regardless of taxes and inflation and if you need to spend an extra seven figures just to get the existing tenants to move out of the old rent-controlled structure you bought so you could redevelop it into a larger structure with more units, but not that much larger because NIIIIIIMBYYYYY!! And now the million dollar (for a 300sqft basement studio) question - what happens to this project of yours if your break-even rent ends up being higher than what prospective tenants are willing to pay? And what happens to the amount of available housing if majority of developers are faced with the same dilemma?

Originally Posted by timberline742

Who said you can't raise rent? You can. They were getting $12k a month for that "shack". Rents were being raised.

And if it's new construction rent control doesn't apply.

So to answer, no, it doesn't. For the 100th time. In fact, if anything, it encourages new construction.

You are welcome.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by WestieWhitie

https://sfrb.org/topic-no-051-years-...wable-increase oh wise one, applicable to all non-commercial properties in SF. So let’s try again - as a developer, how will your break-even rent be affected if you’re unable to raise rent by more than the minuscule amount politburo deems acceptable regardless of taxes and inflation and if you need to spend an extra seven figures just to get the existing tenants to move out of the old rent-controlled structure you bought so you could redevelop it into a larger structure with more units, but not that much larger because NIIIIIIMBYYYYY!! And now the million dollar (for a 300sqft basement studio) question - what happens to this project of yours if your break-even rent ends up being higher than what prospective tenants are willing to pay? And what happens to the amount of available housing if majority of developers are faced with the same dilemma?

Is that you admitting you were dead wrong about not being able to raise rent? Odd way of doing it.

NIMBY and zoning are separate issues.

The rest of your word salad random questions unrelated to the discussion at hand will be rightfully ignored as you're losing the debate and being wrong at every turn and attempting to grasp at straws at something to try to be right about. The money paid to people to move out is pocket change in the total costs. A non issue.

[Urban Peasant]

Originally Posted by Boston Shudra

Great data! The fairly even support for Campbell across all precincts is pretty cool.



"Pass off"? The census considers NEMA people to be white, no? George is 100% white even with her North African heritage.

Oh the official Federal Govt definition eh!? The same Federal Government that uses a population formula to determine what is rural and what is urban, thereby categorizing communities like Pepperell MA as urban. Let's not go there . Other than official documents, it's safe to say we can refute the Federal Government definition of who we are. Even our own media outlets report Essaibi-George as a person of color. This WBUR report says so https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/09/22...n-mayoral-race. And seriously, if a person identifies in such a way, then so be it, no one can tell them that they're not. The US Census is not a person and can only see black and white for administrative purposes, not grey.

[WestieWhitie]

So paying a cool million or so just to get the old tenants to move out so you can convert that old crumbling three family into a six or eight unit apartment building because of local NIMBYs already empowered in SF, about to be empowered by Wu, who won’t allow anything larger, is “pocket change?” And not being able to raise rent to match inflation and ever-increasing property taxes and maintenance expenses but instead being stuck with whatever politburo mandates has no effect on break-even rent you’d have to charge from the get-go? I knew you were wise, oh wise one, but I had no idea you were THAT wise!

PS: rent control, oh wise one, is politburo mandating how much rent you can charge. Is politburo telling you that you can only charge $2,010, a cool $10 increase from prior year, instead of $2,250 you were planning to charge because your property taxes just went through the roof and off into stratosphere, not rent control?

Originally Posted by timberline742

Is that you admitting you were dead wrong about not being able to raise rent? Odd way of doing it.

NIMBY and zoning are separate issues.

The rest of your word salad random questions unrelated to the discussion at hand will be rightfully ignored as you're losing the debate and being wrong at every turn and attempting to grasp at straws at something to try to be right about. The money paid to people to move out is pocket change in the total costs. A non issue.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by WestieWhitie

So paying a cool million or so just to get the old tenants to move out so you can convert that old crumbling three family into a six or eight unit apartment building because of local NIMBYs already empowered in SF, about to be empowered by Wu, who won’t allow anything larger, is “pocket change?” And not being able to raise rent to match inflation and ever-increasing property taxes and maintenance expenses but instead being stuck with whatever politburo mandates has no effect on break-even rent you’d have to charge from the get-go? I knew you were wise, oh wise one, but I had no idea you were THAT wise!

PS: rent control, oh wise one, is politburo mandating how much rent you can charge. Is politburo telling you that you can only charge $2,010, a cool $10 increase from prior year, instead of $2,250 you were planning to charge because your property taxes just went through the roof and off into stratosphere, not rent control?

How many fibs are you going to pack in?

It wasnt a million. It wasn't even half a million.

For a unit the owners were getting $12k a month in rent for. Its a place owned and bought by the super wealthy. That tiny some is pocket change in the entire development.

And again lying about the $10 increase. They tie the yearly increase to inflation. Wrong there too!

Of course the property taxes remain very stable as well on the very old structures as their value remains steady and is offset by all the much more valuable new construction which isn't impacted by rent control. I have no time to explain things like how budgets are set and till rates calculated.

[WestieWhitie]

All right wise one, I give up, it’s simply impossible to argue with someone this wise! Rent control has no adverse effect on housing availability, rent and real estate prices, thank to rent control SF is the most affordable city in the US and we’ll be even more affordable once Comrade Wu is elected. Down with capitalism, long live Mao!

Originally Posted by timberline742

How many fibs are you going to pack in?

It wasnt a million. It wasn't even half a million.

For a unit the owners were getting $12k a month in rent for. Its a place owned and bought by the super wealthy. That tiny some is pocket change in the entire development.

And again lying about the $10 increase. They tie the yearly increase to inflation. Wrong there too!

Of course the property taxes remain very stable as well on the very old structures as their value remains steady and is offset by all the much more valuable new construction which isn't impacted by rent control. I have no time to explain things like how budgets are set and till rates calculated.

[Boston Shudra]

Originally Posted by Urban Peasant

And seriously, if a person identifies in such a way, then so be it, no one can tell them that they're not.

Like it or not, "race" is entirely visual. No one would see this woman walking down the street, knowing nothing about her background, and say "there goes a woman of color".

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images...7/mK6hzFHl.jpg

[msRB311]

She considers herself Arab I thought ? Are Arabs people of color ? I've heard they consider themselves Caucasian.

This article refers to both Wu and George as women of color:

https://apnews.com/article/elections...4a275f97d76dcb

I guess being half polish and half Tunisian makes you a woman of color.

I knew Bianca de la Garza back in the day. She was Bianca Burke back then. Suddenly when she started becoming famous Burke was just too boring and De La Garza was the way to go to get attention. Her dad is Mexican but you'd never know that by looking at her. It was like she was hiding her true ethnic background until it was convenient to her to use it. I cant help but wonder if George shared often growing up in Dorchester in the 80s/90s that she was a woman color.

When I google Bianca it actually says Bianca de la Garza is a Mexican-American journalist, television personality, and founder of Bianca de la Garza Beauty. I guess it's sad if she felt she couldn't be honest about her heritage back then for fear or not fitting in. I think a lot people just thought it seemed fake and tried to use it to get ahead in her career.