HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2018, 4:44 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin View Post
It's not ideal, for sure; but even less ideal would be for renters to have no security on their home and have to contend with the constant possibility of eviction or homelessness should they face a sudden rent increase above than they can afford or would be willing to pay.

We make many of these sorts of compromises as part of living in a civilized society, and in this case, it's been decided that the rights of the incumbent tenant to be secure in their apartment trump the rights of the prospective tenant to pay a lesser rent.
There’s always a cheaper apartment to rent. Why does anyone “deserve” to stay somewhere like Greenwich Village, when ostensibly more successful people with better jobs and higher incomes have to live in some neighborhood in Queens or Jersey because they didn’t win a lottery?
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2018, 5:26 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 6,846
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2018, 5:37 PM
MonkeyRonin's Avatar
MonkeyRonin MonkeyRonin is offline
¥ ¥ ¥
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
There’s always a cheaper apartment to rent.

The same holds true for the prospective tenant. If the apartment they want is too expensive, they can always look for a cheaper one.



Quote:
Why does anyone “deserve” to stay somewhere like Greenwich Village, when ostensibly more successful people with better jobs and higher incomes have to live in some neighborhood in Queens or Jersey because they didn’t win a lottery?

Because they're already living there, and don't deserve to be displaced for someone who "deserves" their apartment more because they're so much more successful.
__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2018, 5:41 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin View Post
The same holds true for the prospective tenant. If the apartment they want is too expensive, they can always look for a cheaper one.

Because they're already living there, and don't deserve to be displaced for someone who "deserves" their apartment more because they're so much more successful.
Renters don’t have any inherent right to remain in place. That’s a benefit of ownership.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2018, 6:10 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave8721 View Post
Also in theory, maybe that 1500 he is paying would have been 1200 but the landlord had to charge 1500 to make up money they are not making from the one only paying 600 while they still have a building to maintain and pay taxes on it.

As an aside, does rent control exist anywhere in the US outside of NY and California? I am not sure if I remember Boston having it from my time there.
Most landlords are going to charge "market rates", meaning the most they can get, for vacant units that are not controlled whether some units are controlled or not.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2018, 6:19 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
Renters don’t have any inherent right to remain in place*. That’s a benefit of ownership.
*Except in San Francisco

Quote:
If your landlord tells you to move, it doesn’t mean you have to. In San Francisco, if you are covered under rent control, you can only be evicted for one of 16 “just causes,” unless you share the rental unit with your landlord. Plus, here, and everywhere in California, evictions must follow specific legal procedures and a court process before you can be forced to move, unless you are a sole lodger living with the owner.

Beware: Most “no fault” evictions require landlords to pay relocation payments and restrict whether or not a landlord can raise the rent on a new tenant or convert the unit into a condominium. Tenants who move just because the landlord tells them to—without making the landlord actually issue an eviction notice—allow the landlord to evade re-rental and condo conversion restrictions, as well as relocation payments.

Also beware: Just because a landlord is selling a property, or just bought it, is not a ground for eviction (even if it’s a foreclosure). Thousands of San Franciscans are evicted by greedy landlords seeking to raise rents. If you are facing an unjust eviction, fight back; you can win . . . .

“No fault” evictions (just causes of Ellis Act, owner move-in, demolition, capital improvement, substantial rehabilitation, sale of unit converted to a condo, and lead paint abatement) get relocation payments. A household evicted for less than 20 days has a relocation payment limited by state law. See document 577 for the amounts for owner move in, demolition, capital improvement, substantial rehabilitation payments and evictions for less than 20 days.

When you rent a residential unit, you have legal possession until you either choose to give up possession or the landlord gets a court order for possession except a sole lodger living with the owner may be evicted without going to court. You have the right to bring your case to a jury. If you win, you get to stay. If you lose, only the sheriff has the right to remove you.

You have all these rights even if you are behind in your rent. Your landlord cannot put your belongings on the street or lock you out or turn off your utilities. This is a violation of California Civil Code Section 789.3 and the landlord is liable for damages as well as for $100 a day in penalties . . . .
https://www.sftu.org/eviction/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2018, 6:24 PM
MonkeyRonin's Avatar
MonkeyRonin MonkeyRonin is offline
¥ ¥ ¥
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
Renters don’t have any inherent right to remain in place. That’s a benefit of ownership.

Except in places with rent control where we've collectively agreed that renters do have a right to live in their apartment.
__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2018, 6:28 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Here's what rent control and affordability mandates really mean:

Quote:
Are construction costs killing new Bay Area housing?
By Roland Li – Reporter, San Francisco Business Times
Apr 26, 2018, 12:51pm PDT Updated Apr 26, 2018, 2:04pm

Even with apartment rents near record highs, rising construction costs and city fees are slowing down housing development around the Bay Area. In San Francisco, 4,500 new units were completed in 2017, down 14 percent for the year. Completions are expected to fall further based on the pipeline.

Garrett Frakes, partner at brokerage Polaris Pacific, said the entire Bay Area is becoming unattractive for development.

Developers are grappling with construction costs that have risen by 10 percent a year by some estimates, largely in part because of a shortage of labor. San Francisco has the second-highest development costs for all sectors in the world at $330 per square foot, behind only New York, according to a study last year by Turner and Townsend, a construction consultant.

The price of a building one apartment in San Francisco has reached $700,000, including upwards of $100,000 per unit in fees . . . .

Land prices have been falling as costs rise. A few years ago, deals were closing at over $200,000 per approved unit. Some recent sales are still hitting those numbers, but earlier this year, the 1601 Mission St. site sold for $28.5 million, or $129,545 per unit . . . .

Currently, all rental projects above 10 units must provide 19 percent affordable housing, and all condo projects must provide 21 percent. Those levels will increase by another 1 percent next year under a Board of Supervisors agreement in 2017 . . . .

Some of Gladstone’s other clients are switching from housing projects to hotels, which aren’t subject to the city’s affordable housing requirements. Others are also seeking to do projects under 10 units that aren’t subject to the fees, but city planning is pushing for more units, he said.

Because of these pressures, some developers are looking south and east . . . . the pipeline of new projects indicates a shift of investment outside of San Francisco . . . .
https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranc...a-housing.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2018, 8:23 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin View Post
It's not ideal, for sure; but even less ideal would be for renters to have no security on their home and have to contend with the constant possibility of eviction or homelessness should they face a sudden rent increase above than they can afford or would be willing to pay.

We make many of these sorts of compromises as part of living in a civilized society, and in this case, it's been decided that the rights of the incumbent tenant to be secure in their apartment trump the rights of the prospective tenant to pay a lesser rent.
That’s a blatant falsehood. You are using extreme cases to justify highly flawed policies. I see no reason to believe that raising rents is suddenly going to make thousands of people homeless. There are always other apartments, homes, etc that are cheaper and ready to rent.

People move around in their lives all the time due to things that aren’t always in their control, and this is no different.
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2018, 8:34 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 6,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
That’s a blatant falsehood. You are using extreme cases to justify highly flawed policies. I see no reason to believe that raising rents is suddenly going to make thousands of people homeless. There are always other apartments, homes, etc that are cheaper and ready to rent.

People move around in their lives all the time due to things that aren’t always in their control, and this is no different.
Maybe where you live, but definitely in Los Angeles, there are many people who are homeless not necessarily because they are mentally ill. Many do start living out of their cars because they got evicted/could no longer afford rent.

I don't know why this is even a concern of yours, being that your state doesn't even have rent control. So you don't have to worry yourself about "subsidizing other people's rent" and "flawed policies."
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2018, 8:35 PM
MonkeyRonin's Avatar
MonkeyRonin MonkeyRonin is offline
¥ ¥ ¥
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
That’s a blatant falsehood. You are using extreme cases to justify highly flawed policies. I see no reason to believe that raising rents is suddenly going to make thousands of people homeless. There are always other apartments, homes, etc that are cheaper and ready to rent.

People move around in their lives all the time due to things that aren’t always in their control, and this is no different.

In most places it's probably not an issue, but in more competitive, high-cost markets it absolutely is a real possibility. Rapid gentrification and price increases aren't common; or, the more likely scenario is if a building is sold to a new landlord, that they're likely to jack up the rents to recoup the cost of the sale.
__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2018, 8:47 PM
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Envy of the World
Posts: 4,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
Maybe where you live, but definitely in Los Angeles, there are many people who are homeless not necessarily because they are mentally ill. Many do start living out of their cars because they got evicted/could no longer afford rent.

I don't know why this is even a concern of yours, being that your state doesn't even have rent control. So you don't have to worry yourself about "subsidizing other people's rent" and "flawed policies."
I'm not disagreeing with your post, but do you have any data about this subject?

How would this be data be collected and measured? There are a lot of undiagnosed cases out there. Some homeless people might be living in their RV, but perhaps they have an underlying issue for that very reason.

Most homeless people I encounter on the street have a very visible sign of mental distress or physical addiction issues. Those that park and hide within their RV are less visible, but probably have similar issues.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2018, 9:01 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 6,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt View Post
I'm not disagreeing with your post, but do you have any data about this subject?

How would this be data be collected and measured? There are a lot of undiagnosed cases out there. Some homeless people might be living in their RV, but perhaps they have an underlying issue for that very reason.

Most homeless people I encounter on the street have a very visible sign of mental distress or physical addiction issues. Those that park and hide within their RV are less visible, but probably have similar issues.
I'm sure there are more credible sources that can be looked up, but according to this, 9,322 people became newly homeless last year in Los Angeles County:
https://losangelesmission.org/facts-...iAAEgINL_D_BwE

And remember, if you have to keep renting and changing motel rooms every other day or every other week, you are homeless. Homeless people aren't just the visible ones on the street with obvious mental issues.
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2018, 9:47 PM
llamaorama llamaorama is offline
Unicorn Wizard!
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,204
Maybe we need a government program that pays people a few thousand dollars to move if their income is below a certain amount, they live in a county with a COL at least 300% the national median, they move to a county with a COL no more than 150% the national median, and they obtain full time employment in the new location and maintain it?

People need to abandon cities like Los Angeles.

Quote:
It's been so much of a failure, I bet even the technocrats of the French welfare state lost count, cause their hellish social machinery grew so complex that they no longer can understand or control it themselves.
I think we have unrealistic expectations about welfare because of politics.

Conservatives believe welfare is only worthwhile if it gets people out of poverty permanently. But a lot of people are always going to in poverty, even if they do everything right. You could learn a trade skill and never turn down full time work, but if the economy doesn't value you because of age or disability it is hopeless.

Also "welfare" isn't just the government giving people money. It's also things like federal funding for local and municipal projects and services. In highly centralized European countries, conservatives in power means austerity cuts to bus and train schedules, libraries and parks/recreational facilities close, the number of police and firefighters on duty is dropped, etc. Still you guys pay over half of your income in taxes for the privilege, I just don't get it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2018, 9:49 PM
Jonesy55 Jonesy55 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt View Post
I'm not disagreeing with your post, but do you have any data about this subject?

How would this be data be collected and measured? There are a lot of undiagnosed cases out there. Some homeless people might be living in their RV, but perhaps they have an underlying issue for that very reason.

Most homeless people I encounter on the street have a very visible sign of mental distress or physical addiction issues. Those that park and hide within their RV are less visible, but probably have similar issues.
I would imagine it's a downward spiral in many cases. There are probably a lot of people with mild and manageable mental health issues who would get by ok if they had stable and affordable housing, but the extra stress of precarious unaffordable housing makes those issues worse which can then lead to losing a job and not being able to pay the rent, then having to sleep in a car or on the street makes those issues even worse so they don't then ever stand much chance of getting another job.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2018, 9:51 PM
Double L's Avatar
Double L Double L is offline
Houston:Considered Good
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Houston
Posts: 4,846
I think affordable housing should be for the disabled or seniors only (only the ones who need it). For anybody else, we should leave them in a low quality of life so they will feel motivated to go beyond and work for better than what they are given right now. More of a homeless shelter type environment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2018, 9:57 PM
llamaorama llamaorama is offline
Unicorn Wizard!
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt View Post
I'm not disagreeing with your post, but do you have any data about this subject?

How would this be data be collected and measured? There are a lot of undiagnosed cases out there. Some homeless people might be living in their RV, but perhaps they have an underlying issue for that very reason.

Most homeless people I encounter on the street have a very visible sign of mental distress or physical addiction issues. Those that park and hide within their RV are less visible, but probably have similar issues.
So freaking what?

If they could normally support themselves, or live mostly independently with some assistance from family or less extensive government services, and the reason why they are now totally indigent is because of expensive housing, then why should they be punished? Should someone with a bipolar disorder who could hold down a part time job and get by in a place like Iowa be jailed and institutionalized for life just because they live in California?

Also wouldn't that kind of hardship give even a mentally healthy person depression or anxiety problems?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Double L View Post
I think affordable housing should be for the disabled or seniors only (only the ones who need it). For anybody else, we should leave them in a low quality of life so they will feel motivated to go beyond and work for better than what they are given right now. More of a homeless shelter type environment.
What if that work doesn't pay enough?

I wonder if this why people in places like New York aren't particularly motivated to not rely on public housing and assistance.

Independence is just not an attainable goal if rent costs $2000/mo and a "good" job for a 40 year old high school graduate with severe resume gaps and some background with substance abuse maxes out at $13/hour and that's for the rest of their life?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2018, 10:34 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin View Post
Except in places with rent control where we've collectively agreed that renters do have a right to live in their apartment.
My point is that *we* haven’t collectively agreed anything, as evidenced by the fact that many people oppose rent control.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2018, 10:46 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 6,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
My point is that *we* haven’t collectively agreed anything, as evidenced by the fact that many people oppose rent control.
Whaaaaaat??? I would think most if not all renters would be for it.

Here's an article from April, before the initiative to repeal Costa-Hawkins made it to the November ballot in California:

https://www.dailynews.com/2018/04/09...-rent-control/
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2018, 10:47 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
Maybe where you live, but definitely in Los Angeles, there are many people who are homeless not necessarily because they are mentally ill. Many do start living out of their cars because they got evicted/could no longer afford rent.

I don't know why this is even a concern of yours, being that your state doesn't even have rent control. So you don't have to worry yourself about "subsidizing other people's rent" and "flawed policies."
You perhaps need to differentiate between the long-term homeless and the briefly homeless. People do become briefly homeless because they get evicted or can't afford rent, but they don't allow themselves to turn into the fragile creatures mumbling to themselves squatting on street corners. They either improve their circumstances, with or without governmental help, or they leave for somewhere they can afford or they do SOMETHING to avoid joining the long-term homeless if they are not themselves disabled by mental illness or addiction.

The long-term homeless who spend years living outside are nearly all incapable of helping themselves either because of mental illness or severe substance abuse/addiction or, sometimes, physical disability (whether they had such a condition when they first became homeless or developed it from living on the street).

Quote:
. . . the most common length of time that someone is homeless is one or two days, and half the people who enter the homeless shelter system will leave within 30 days, never to return.

Long-term homelessness is relatively rare. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, about 2 million people in the United States were homeless at some point in 2009 (meaning they stayed overnight in a shelter or in a place not meant for human habitation). But on any given day, only about 112,000 people fit the federal definition of "chronic homelessness," which applies to those who have been continuously homeless for a year or more, or are experiencing at least their fourth episode of homelessness in three years.

Nearly all of the long-term homeless have tenuous family ties and some kind of disability, whether it is a drug or alcohol addiction, a mental illness, or a physical handicap . . . .

. . . the rate of severe mental illness among the homeless (including families and children) is 13 to 15 percent. Among the much smaller group of single adults who are chronically homeless, however, the rate reaches 30 to 40 percent. For this population, mental illness is clearly a barrier to exiting homelessness.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...070902357.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:54 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.