The CAA spokesperson just on Your Call made economics sound like a protection racket--"If developers can't make as much money as possible, they will refuse to build, not even because of any specific rent control policy, just the *possibility* of new laws." Call their bluff I say.
-
-
Replying to @natogreen @dillonliam
it's not... not make as much money as possible. It's that they'd actually lose money, so they logically won't build anything at all, which will just enhance/maximize financial returns for people who already own pre-built, existing property (like you!)https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2018/04/26/construction-costs-killing-new-bay-area-housing.html …
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @dillonliam
We've covered this and it's silly. They wouldn't lose money unless local governments enact future extreme rent control policies, which assumes a politics in California that is literally impossible, in which developers and realtors are not at the table at all.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
And, my tenants effectively have rent control, voluntarily, so it doesn't maximize my rate of anything. OTOH, my mom and brother both had to move to Colorado because they lived in non-rent controlled SFHs. Using me as an example hurts your argument.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @natogreen @dillonliam
shoulda upzoned those SFHs and had a statewide req of a rolling RC date (like 20+ years post-construction).
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
possible, though passing Prop 10 is the condition of that kind of negotiation. as we've discussed, opposing Prop 10 based on a theoretical negotiation that couldn't happen sooner is a dishonest position. Pass Prop 10 and then let's figure it out.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @natogreen @kimmaicutler
On the specifics, IMO yes on SFH. Yes on a rolling date, but I'd want to see data before deciding what it should be. One proposal was 10 years, because I'm told that's the statute of limitations on lawsuits for such projects.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @natogreen @kimmaicutler
Also, Wiener could have carved out C-H for new projects under 827. It would have won him a lot more support from his left flank if the new developments would have come under rent control eventually.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @natogreen
I am all for figuring out some compromise that gets us somewhere to the middle of an SB 827/Prop 10 lovechild (god forbid!)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
me too, depending on what "middle" means. the politics of that path gets a whole lot easier if Prop 10 passes, and if Wiener includes tenants groups in communities of color in shaping the policy from the beginning.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
I think he is this time but I’d defer to @anniefryman to ask how.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.