How did you vote on the measures? (San Francisco: low income, real estate)

[HappyinCali]

Me: yes yes yes no

The reason i voted "no" on-the last one is because i believe that politicians SHOULD already be doing that. That's like asking my wife to vote if i should not cheat on her. I am tired of pointless grandstanding measures that have no real teeth and i refuse to be part of it.

On B and C i voted yes, because i believe rents are as expensive as they are because there is no new development. Is 8 washington going to solve it - no. But the whole attitude of if we develop we will become Manhattan is absurd to me. There is middle ground and the anti-development attitude ofnthe NIMBYs drives me off the wall. Hopefully 8 washington changes this slightly. Plus i like the park idea

[bmw335xi]

I voted "Yes" on every measure.


Here are the results:

Measure A - Yes 69% / No 31%

Measure B - Yes 44% / No 56%

Measure C - Yes 38% / No 62%

Measure D - Yes 80% / No 20%


I'm not happy with the results to say the least. I am in favor of development, growing the economy, creating jobs, utilizing space and increasing apartment/condominium/home numbers.

[pch1013]

Ugh.

SF has moved beyond NIMBY to BANANA - Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone.

[HappyinCali]

It is embarrassing. The very same people who oppose any new construction are probably the ones complaining loudest about rent prices.

The TransAmerica building would have never been built in modern day San Francisco

[wave9x]

It is strange how SF is so anti-growth. Renters outnumber owners almost 2:1. I would have thought that once renters get a majority you would see more renter-friendly policies like increased building. I suppose owners are more vocal and they can always play the "it will destroy the City" card.

It reminds me of school bonds. No matter how poorly planned or asinine, proponents play the "you don't hate children, do you?" card.

(South Park reference: http://www.southparkstudios.com/clip...-hate-children)

[Obamadon1]

Originally Posted by wave9x

It is strange how SF is so anti-growth. Renters outnumber owners almost 2:1. I would have thought that once renters get a majority you would see more renter-friendly policies like increased building. I suppose owners are more vocal and they can always play the "it will destroy the City" card.

People are also stupid and get mixed up with cause and effect. SF has had a (relative) lot of building recently and rents are rising, ergo construction causes higher rents. New construction should be stopped and rents will stabilize or fall.

[legal_eagle]

I did not get around to voting, but I would have voted no on B and C. I am really glad that monstrosity on Washington Street won't be built. I would love it if Mayor Lee were to be recalled ... he's a complete tool.

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by HappyinCali

It is embarrassing. The very same people who oppose any new construction are probably the ones complaining loudest about rent prices.

The TransAmerica building would have never been built in modern day San Francisco

I completely agree with you!

I love San Francisco, but the anti-development mentality is starting to make me want to move out. The only good thing about living in a city that dislikes development is that the chances of my condo continuing to increase in value is much more likely. When you stop development, it lowers supply, which causes prices to go way up.

Argos wants to make that site an affordable housing community for teachers and artists. This will only make rent and real estate prices go up for the majority of people because most people aren't stupid. Many people who don't make much money would rather save for a home than buy a low income property because of resale reasons. Argos's next target is the proposed Warrior Stadium.

In my development, the average listing lasts 1-2 weeks before it goes into contract. However, there is a low income unit that has been on the market for many months because nobody wants it. The average price in my development is up around 50% since 2011. I plan on selling it in 2-3 years and then move out. I love this city, but I am starting to get over living here when I think about what my lifestyle could be like in many other cities.

[legal_eagle]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

I completely agree with you!

I love San Francisco, but the anti-development mentality is starting to make me want to move out. The only good thing about living in a city that dislikes development is that the chances of my condo continuing to increase in value is much more likely. When you stop development, it lowers supply, which causes prices to go way up.

Argos wants to make that site an affordable housing community for teachers and artists. This will only make rent and real estate prices go up for the majority of people because most people aren't stupid. Many people who don't make much money would rather save for a home than buy a low income property because of resale reasons. Argos's next target is the proposed Warrior Stadium.

In my development, the average listing lasts 1-2 weeks before it goes into contract. However, there is a low income unit that has been on the market for many months because nobody wants it. The average price in my development is up around 50% since 2011. I plan on selling it in 2-3 years and then move out. I love this city, but I am starting to get over living here when I think about what my lifestyle could be like in many other cities.

Because one development was stopped you think SF is not "anti-development"? Maybe you're a relative newbie here, but a tremendous number of empty lots in SF have been developed in the last 10 years, including many up and down Market Street that are still in progress.

I hope that the Warrior Stadium is stopped. We have enough stuff on the waterfront already. And this city tends not to be impressed by pro-sports franchises. The public told the Giants to take a flying leap when they asked for public financing to build a new park to replace Candlestick Park. Hopefully the same spirit will prevail again!

[Obamadon1]

Originally Posted by legal_eagle

Because one development was stopped you think SF is not "anti-development"? Maybe you're a relative newbie here, but a tremendous number of empty lots in SF have been developed in the last 10 years, including many up and down Market Street that are still in progress.

I hope that the Warrior Stadium is stopped. We have enough stuff on the waterfront already. And this city tends not to be impressed by pro-sports franchises. The public told the Giants to take a flying leap when they asked for public financing to build a new park to replace Candlestick Park. Hopefully the same spirit will prevail again!

A "tremendous" amount of development does not necessarily equal an adequate amount of development for a city like SF, or enough development to prevent rents from skyrocketing.