SFist: The Bolt-Cutters Are Back

SFHawkguy

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:37:12 -0800

Then try to change the law to require property owners to give more than 15% of their property away to poor people. As is, the developer here has complied with the law. Apparantly, the activists want a precedent that all new development has to get the seal of approval from the them. They get to require a developer to give away more than the law requires and if not they will break into your property and camp out man! Once again, why don't you activists focus your efforts on building affordable housing? Why hassle a developer that is complying with the requirements to build the requisite below-market units?

guest

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:25:31 -0800

"Developers will still make a killing" Don't you understand that this is your ironic byproduct of fighting against supply? When the "progressives" let progress happen and allow more development, that's when market forces will create affordable housing. Until then, please continue to drive out the middle class families in favor of the single poor.

daithi

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:51:47 -0800

15% of units is not enough. Developers will still make a killing if the quota is upped. These folks are not lazy, bums etc, you try sleeping for a few nights in that vacant lot instead of your own bed for a cause you believe in. Tent city protests have a great history. In Boston, there was a similar protest years ago, and the city came up with a plan, and now a large multi income housing complex with a big mix of rentals, condos, and low cost housing is there. The name...... "Tent City"....

guest

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:34:16 -0800

Anti-poor?? Maybe just a little. But that's limited to a repulsion for the beggars that are driven to depend on a handout instead of searching for a job where they can contribute to society and pay their fair share of taxes. But I digress. My problem is the beloved San Francisco paradigm whereby advocates for the poor extort funds from land and homeowners and then block those same people from passing on the costs to their tenants. I'm all for supporting the poor, but I abhor the fact that it is done primary on the backs of homeowners instead of the general populace. And then the advocates bitch about the fact that it is so expensive to purchase housing in The City.

guest

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:25:15 -0800

"lazy, slacker, hipster, worthless, artsy-fartsy jobless coffeehouse wifi "look at me Im a Burner" joke of a 120-pound black-wearing drug-using loser." is the funniest thing i've read in a long time.

suckafree

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 08:11:47 -0800

"I don't think we're anti-poor. We're anti-slacker. Big difference. Besides, the people who end up in this "low income housing units" aren't poor. Go across the street and look at the cars parked in the parking lot of the Bernal Gateway "low income" building. There are lots of cars way nicer than mine." how fucked up is that? these people we are subsidizing with bmr's are spending that money on luxury items since they don't have to pay regular rent or mortgage???? unbelievable! toss those fuckers out for real working poor that cannot afford new cars even with the subsidies.

Yogo

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 08:11:23 -0800

I sure as heck am a freemarketer and I'm not antipoor at all but I'm anti- lazy, slacker, hipster, worthless, artsy-fartsy jobless coffeehouse wifi "look at me Im a Burner" joke of a 120-pound black-wearing drug-using loser. We also have no use for the professional extrotioner activists like Saucedo and BHNC and Shaw and and Jesse Jackson who exploit the poorso they can stay rich and feel good about themselves while real people who actually work for a living can't get a house and their kids can't go to school and the laborors smoke crack on Cesar Chavez all day and harass women and children. The ones who want to really want to work and not drink Bud and play cards and polka all day will go to the hiring hall and work and try to improve their lives and the rest of you will team with the rest because your lazy and you have no hope of making something out of your lives and your resent those that do. One day I will write my treatist 'on the life of a bum'. Want the proof? Fancy furniture stores on Valencia. All you need to know about Frisco 'activist' culture. We ought to napalm the whole place.

suckafree

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 08:03:54 -0800

mystery solved, thanks fcj. seven hills owns that land now. not sure what they paid for it since property shark and zillow have no data for any transactions at that address. the city did not own it as someone else suggested. great to hear these activists have enough money to build housing. too late for this piece of property. it's already been bought, paid for and approved. next time you guys might want to plan ahead and approach the closed store owner a little earlier to broker your own deal. you missed the boat on this one so fuck off!

SFHawkguy

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 07:12:39 -0800

That's ridiculous to say sfists readers are anti-poor. That's great that you want housing for the poor built. As pointed out on the other thread, go ahead, raise the money and build it. There are plenty of vacant property lots in the Mission alone. Just don't try to stop other developments because private property owners don't want to give away 100% of their property to the poor. This develepont has 15% affordable housing, as required by law. And maybe sfist readers, like other progressives in The City, are starting to realize that the professional housing activists are more a problem than they are a help. And maybe we think you are interested in your own political relevance instead of getting housing built.

guest

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 02:04:04 -0800

I don't think we're anti-poor. We're anti-slacker. Big difference. Besides, the people who end up in this "low income housing units" aren't poor. Go across the street and look at the cars parked in the parking lot of the Bernal Gateway "low income" building. There are lots of cars way nicer than mine. What this is really about is special interest groups getting city money. It's not about "poor" people.

guest

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 23:10:13 -0800

sfist: smart, in-depth & progressive analysis sfist commentators: snarky, anti-poor, freemarketeers

guest

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:30:27 -0800

"Our current methodology (requiring that 85% of the homeowners of a project subsidize the pricing for the other 15%) only creates a spread in cost that eliminates the middle ground" I agree with you (mostlty) but what these activists want is far more divorced from economic reality The developer is including the 15% BMR housing in this project's plan. What these activist's want is 100% affordable housing

SFHawkguy

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:43:55 -0800

Maybe the property owner was able to find a laborer to quickly repair the fence?

mariconsoy

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:13:52 -0800

I was just there [2PM Thurs]. There are no tents, no people and the fence is up with no visible holes...

MisterPlow

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:06:29 -0800

I finally registered *just* so I could LOL at tcc's comment!

guest

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:05:48 -0800

What is it going to take to explain to the anti-development progressives that the only solution here is more development? Our current methodology (requiring that 85% of the homeowners of a project subsidize the pricing for the other 15%) only creates a spread in cost that eliminates the middle ground. In time, this will eventually create a local population of only people that are either wealthy or poor.

Bushy Hyde

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 14:30:43 -0800

Can anyone explain what happens when actual low income housing is built? Suppose the rent/buying price is set for people earning 50 or 75% of median SF income. I would assume they have to open it up to a lottery system? So, like 50,000 people will apply, and 60 win. Are only families allowed to participate? Only people who already live in the Mission? What about someone who lives in Daly City or Antioch. At some point does it just become "whoever wins a drawing, gets to live in San Francisco" The logistics seem tricky.

tcc

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 14:02:36 -0800

Agreed: how lame Where were these people when the property was for sale? If they have the intent and means to develop 100% affordable housing they should have bought the land back then. Someone else has the rights and permits to build on this land now. Roll up your tents and go home. And why aren't these protesters one block up the street at Mission Pie objecting to $18 pies being sold in the neighborhood? Isn't that too 'high end' for the neighborhood too? We need more affordable pies in the Mission, not luxury pies!

Jas

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:48:37 -0800

Nothing lends legitimacy to your cause like good old breakin' and enterin'.

J

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:27:22 -0800

It's funny that those protesting "luxury condos" are setting up tents that appear to be pretty nice. Nicer than I can afford anyway, and I own a market-rate flat!

guest

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:22:15 -0800

Lame-o ... setting up tents? As if they can just sit there until the property owner says, "To heck with it, please, take my multi-million dollar property for free .. just stop camping on my property, for the love of God...." Lame-o

guest

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:18:47 -0800

I see white people.