Prop 34 is my favorite proposition this year. AHF is deeply corrupt. They exploit people living with HIV for their own NIMBY benefits. They are not an ethical HIV contractor either. I like how you connect their NIMBY land use policy positions to the failure of rent control initiatives: that is priceless! I am sure Santa Monica would pass rent control on new construction. There is an alliance between some rent control leaders and the wealthy NIMBY homeowners. I can't speak for Berkeley or SF.
I have seen a bunch of people say that 34 is bad because it "targets" one particular organization, but this is such a dumb argument. It makes exactly as much sense as saying that prosecutors have "targeted" Donald Trump, because, uniquely among presidents, he did a lot of crimes. Like, _if_ there were some other president who was DOING CRIMES, I'd want that president tried for his crimes as well. And _if_ there were some other organization as uniquely bad and corrupt as AHF, abusing a discount drug program to set itself as a political juggernaut while operating poorly-maintained slum-quality "affordable" housing, I would want them to be banned from doing that too. And nothing in Prop 34 _stops_ the legislature from coming back and doing some more thoughtful regulations on users of the discount drug program later.
One of the reasons that homeowners go the NIMBY route is that for a lot of people, their home is their security and their nest egg. Use the equity to send the kids to college, sell and buy smaller to fund retirement, etc. I really don’t know how this can be changed (better retirement benefits like a return to pensions?) but it offers a powerful incentive for even “good liberals” to go NIMBY. Not the only reason, but it contributes.
And it stands to reason that tenants are even more supportive of creating new housing: it means that they will be able to continue living in the area. If the landlord neglects the building or raises the rent, or they live in a no-pets building but the kids want a cat, they can move. And rent-controlled tenants - of whom I was once one - know that there but for the grace of rent control go I. So many buildings got converted to co-ops or condos in San Francisco in the 90’s and early 00’s, to get around rent control.
I will say it again, and I will die on this hill: we need more SRO’s, what used to be called “flophouses.” Cheap motels. It would go a long way to help solving the homeless crisis. If not that, then at least adult dorms. Or something. These are not beautiful buildings that add to the charm of a neighborhood, but they keep people housed, and any drinking or substance abuse, not to mention bodily functions, can take place indoors and not in the street.
I vaguely remember the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, but had no idea it was so entangled with housing. Back in the day, in San Francisco, you could stamp your nonprofit as something to do with caring for HIV+ people and it would be approved, because HIV *was* a crisis, and nobody wanted to appear hard-hearted. But from your account they don’t seem to have had much to do with HIV or healthcare. (Cynical about nonprofits? Moi? Hahaha ask me about consulting for them some time; that was one of my many past jobs)
Prop 34 is my favorite proposition this year. AHF is deeply corrupt. They exploit people living with HIV for their own NIMBY benefits. They are not an ethical HIV contractor either. I like how you connect their NIMBY land use policy positions to the failure of rent control initiatives: that is priceless! I am sure Santa Monica would pass rent control on new construction. There is an alliance between some rent control leaders and the wealthy NIMBY homeowners. I can't speak for Berkeley or SF.
I have seen a bunch of people say that 34 is bad because it "targets" one particular organization, but this is such a dumb argument. It makes exactly as much sense as saying that prosecutors have "targeted" Donald Trump, because, uniquely among presidents, he did a lot of crimes. Like, _if_ there were some other president who was DOING CRIMES, I'd want that president tried for his crimes as well. And _if_ there were some other organization as uniquely bad and corrupt as AHF, abusing a discount drug program to set itself as a political juggernaut while operating poorly-maintained slum-quality "affordable" housing, I would want them to be banned from doing that too. And nothing in Prop 34 _stops_ the legislature from coming back and doing some more thoughtful regulations on users of the discount drug program later.
One of the reasons that homeowners go the NIMBY route is that for a lot of people, their home is their security and their nest egg. Use the equity to send the kids to college, sell and buy smaller to fund retirement, etc. I really don’t know how this can be changed (better retirement benefits like a return to pensions?) but it offers a powerful incentive for even “good liberals” to go NIMBY. Not the only reason, but it contributes.
And it stands to reason that tenants are even more supportive of creating new housing: it means that they will be able to continue living in the area. If the landlord neglects the building or raises the rent, or they live in a no-pets building but the kids want a cat, they can move. And rent-controlled tenants - of whom I was once one - know that there but for the grace of rent control go I. So many buildings got converted to co-ops or condos in San Francisco in the 90’s and early 00’s, to get around rent control.
I will say it again, and I will die on this hill: we need more SRO’s, what used to be called “flophouses.” Cheap motels. It would go a long way to help solving the homeless crisis. If not that, then at least adult dorms. Or something. These are not beautiful buildings that add to the charm of a neighborhood, but they keep people housed, and any drinking or substance abuse, not to mention bodily functions, can take place indoors and not in the street.
I vaguely remember the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, but had no idea it was so entangled with housing. Back in the day, in San Francisco, you could stamp your nonprofit as something to do with caring for HIV+ people and it would be approved, because HIV *was* a crisis, and nobody wanted to appear hard-hearted. But from your account they don’t seem to have had much to do with HIV or healthcare. (Cynical about nonprofits? Moi? Hahaha ask me about consulting for them some time; that was one of my many past jobs)
Built before *2004, surely, not 2014.