It’s bad for people living in rent controlled units that have not been excluded from the plan, when they are kicked out of their housing to make room for brand new market rate housing which will definitely be well above what most can afford.
Supervisor Melgar’s proposal to exempt buildings with three or more rent-controlled units from demolition was included in the plan passed on Tuesday. The exemption will shield about 80,000 rent control units from demolition. Some rent-controlled units could still potentially be bulldozed to make way for denser development, but that would first require approval from the Planning Commission.
I am not sure. reading the article, and particularly following section
But critics of the plan, including neighborhood groups and tenants’ rights activists, point out that it does little to actually produce affordable housing, and contend it invites real estate speculation that risks pushing out low-income families and small businesses while disrupting neighborhood charm.
“This does not solve the affordability crisis that we have in San Francisco,” said Chen, who represents the Excelsior neighborhood. “We shouldn’t have to be reminded of the harm that redevelopment did to communities in the past.”
Richard Toshiyuki Drury, an environmental attorney, submitted a letter to the Board on behalf of the local group Neighborhoods United ahead of Tuesday’s vote.
“The rezone opens up thousands of rent-controlled units for high-density, market-rate development, virtually ensuring that thousands of low-income residents will be displaced to make way for luxury housing,” it read.
As I understand, going beyond a certain height, cost of adding new floors gets higher than buying new land, and splitting the number of floors equally among them (though i do not know the number of the top of my head, the reason for this would simply be the increased cost of materials and architectural complexities).
I am not sure what the solution for housing crisis is, but I think empty house tax is an option.
I am not from US, I am from India, where in major cities we have similar problems. there is a potential my thoughts are completely wrong, if they are, please help me know more
8 Comments
Sims@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 250d
paequ2@lemmy.today · 5 pts · 250d
More housing bad? I can see that being bad for NIMBYs or landlords...
ElectricWaterfall@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 250d
It’s bad for people living in rent controlled units that have not been excluded from the plan, when they are kicked out of their housing to make room for brand new market rate housing which will definitely be well above what most can afford.
protist@mander.xyz · 5 pts · 250d
Bonson@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 250d
People really just don’t read shit and comment the one possible downside. Thanks for posting
ElectricWaterfall@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 250d
What about people living in rent controlled buildings with one or two units. They are not exempt. Where do we expect these people to go?
sga013@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 250d
I am not sure. reading the article, and particularly following section
As I understand, going beyond a certain height, cost of adding new floors gets higher than buying new land, and splitting the number of floors equally among them (though i do not know the number of the top of my head, the reason for this would simply be the increased cost of materials and architectural complexities).
I am not sure what the solution for housing crisis is, but I think empty house tax is an option.
I am not from US, I am from India, where in major cities we have similar problems. there is a potential my thoughts are completely wrong, if they are, please help me know more
reddig33@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 250d
That road in the photo needs to be repaved.
anon947262949@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 250d
Don’t worry, it’s shadows from overhead power lines ;)