
How Has San Francisco Run Out of Money for Affordable Housing? - jseliger
https://www.spur.org/news/2018-11-08/how-has-san-francisco-run-out-money-affordable-housing
======
CPLX
I was just in San Francisco for a couple days last week. I live in Brooklyn
New York.

I'm here to tell you that I've figured out the problem you guys are having out
there.

I think the reason you're having some issues is that you have a globally
important city with an absolutely massive jobs base and huge skyscrapers full
of people working, and the rest of the city is full of tiny wood framed 1-3
story houses that each have one car garages on the first floor.

So, maybe, like, let people build fucking apartment buildings.

Just an idea.

~~~
40acres
I was also just in San Francisco (also from Brooklyn!) and noticed this as
well. Downtown SF has all the look and feel of a global city, think Manhattan
or Tokyo. Once you get into the western half of the city it seems like a nice
quaint European city half it's size. I definitely understand why rich land
owners want to "preserve the character of the neighborhoods" but you can't
have it both ways.

The most puzzling thing was that I did see a few new residential constructions
going up and they were also of the 1-3 story variety.

~~~
pmiller2
The reason those buildings are 1-3 stories is that most of the city has a
zoning limit restricting building to ~4 stories at most.

~~~
bobthepanda
Prop 13 also allows people to sit on their land because they can still afford
the property tax for ridiculously expensive houses. If Prop 13 did not exist,
NIMBYs would not have the resources to keep stalling development.

~~~
masonic
Many of them would be selling out and moving to less expensive areas had Prop
5 passed, but the Democrat machine opposed it.

~~~
bobthepanda
Why fix a regressive tax with an even more regressive subsidy? Prop 13 has had
such far reaching negative impacts.

------
ninth_ant
“Affordable housing” is just a coded way to avoid saying “subsidized housing”.
So it should be no surprise that they run out of money for it, there is near-
unlimited demand for subsidized housing and can sink any dollar amount into it
that you could budget.

SF needs to build more dense housing. A lot more. Granting subsidized housing
to a tiny minority feels good and maybe is alright as a bandaid, but isn’t
ever going to solve the problem in the long run.

Build dense, everywhere you can. I sympathize with folks who worry about how
it will change their neighbourhoods but not addressing the problems has
produced even more negative change. Build build build.

~~~
reaperducer
_“Affordable housing” is just a coded way to avoid saying “subsidized
housing”._

Not exactly.

"Subsidized housing" is when the renter or the landlord receive a payment from
the government to supplement the rent paid by a renter.

"Affordable housing" is a broader umbrella and can also include legal
requirements that the landlord set rent rates for a certain percentage of its
units at a particular level (often expressed as xx% of the average wage within
xx distance from the building).

Affordable housing can also include rent control, like the type in New York;
and probably other methods I'm unfamiliar with.

~~~
klipt
But specifically in the article, when they talk about a building being "30%
affordable", they're talking about subsidized lottery housing. I.e. housing
that is below market rate (the developer takes the hit) and is assigned via
San Francisco's affordable housing lotteries to a small fraction of the people
whose income is low enough to qualify.

~~~
reaperducer
_the developer takes the hit_

I think it's a difference in philosophy.

Again, I can't speak about SFO, because my experience in this space is mostly
Chicago.

Your assertion seems to be that the developers "take the hit" as if the
development/building is an island unto itself. The city's view is that the
development/building is part of a community and should contribute to the
community and integrate with it.

That's why in Chicago it is very common for a new building to fix up the
neighborhood it's in, as part of the privilege of locating in Chicago.

400 North Lake Shore, for example, is required to build out DuSable Park. Most
other buildings have to replace all the traffic signals and crosswalks for
three or four or five blocks around.

In addition, if the developer wants extra height, that can be purchased in
exchange for contributions to the Neighborhood Opportunity Fund, or a fund to
preserve historic buildings.

Again, it's a difference in philosophy. "Us vs them," versus becoming a
contributing part of the neighborhood community.

~~~
RhysU
> 400 North Lake Shore, for example, is required to build out DuSable Park.
> Most other buildings have to replace all the traffic signals and crosswalks
> for three or four or five blocks around.

A city should set its property and income taxes such that it can (a) maintain
parks and (b) maintain intersections without requiring ransom from new
developers. Because what happens to the parks and intersections when no new
developers want to come? Also, "I just invented a one-off tax you'll need to
pay" is some corrupt (or at least corruptible) government.

~~~
reaperducer
_maintain parks_

It’s not a park to be maintained. It’s a formerly radioactive wasteland.

 _" I just invented a one-off tax you'll need to pay"_

It’s not a one-off tax. It’s codified, and every developer gets to choose if
it wants to make these payments or not. If the developer doesn’t want to pay,
then it is welcome to build within the zoning established a half century ago,
and it won’t even be subject to Plan Commission review. If the developer wants
an extra 30 stories beyond the current zoning, then it can pay for that by
contributing to the community that it is going to impact with increased
traffic, infrastructure, and demand for services.

------
matchbok
Crazy how of all the recommendations put forward in the article, none of them
actually say what the article admits! That is, inclusionary zoning, or any
other affordability mandate put on private developers, is a failure and cannot
work. If you goal is to make lots of cheap subsidized housing, mandating
developers to give away 30% of their profits will certainly cause a ton of
other issues.

We see IZ popping up everywhere because politicians get to claim they are
helping the most needy without raising taxes or really asking _anything_ from
the normal citizen. In fact, we can see here that the side effects are
numerous and quite scary.

And yet, SF tries and tries to magically create more cheap housing by telling
developers they _must_ do xyz without any care or reason to the market
realities.

~~~
DoreenMichele
Yes, they need to straight up just build more housing.

 _It doesn’t matter if that housing is for high-income residents or low-income
residents. Every housing unit built helps make a city more affordable._

[https://gizmodo.com/how-building-expensive-new-housing-
actua...](https://gizmodo.com/how-building-expensive-new-housing-actually-
helps-creat-1763423240)

~~~
protomyth
_Yes, they need to straight up just build more housing._

Isn't it technically that they need to build massive housing that can get to
the jobs in SF in a reasonable commute time? So either they need to figure out
a way to get commuters into the city quickly (a mass transit solution) or they
need to build a lot more housing where current single family housing is.

I guess if they want the look of the city to stay the same they really need a
get-them-in-and-out plan that actually works.

~~~
manfredo
People are willing to pay a premium to avoid commute times. Not to mention,
commuting is bad for the environment and wastes people's time. There's demand
for housing _in_ San Fransisco. Ignoring this demand and trying to placate it
by building housing out of San Fransisco probably won't do much to dent
housing prices. Even if it does, we'll still pay the price in increased
traffic, pollution, and urban sprawl.

------
manfredo
Because no amount of money overrides the pidgeonhole principle. If the city
keeps refusing to expand the market rate housing pool, then rents (and by
extension land prices) are going to keep rising. Mandating below market rate
units or building public housing is putting a tiny band-aid on a larger
discrepancy between supply and demand.

It seems to me (SF resident) that a lot of people have some idealized views of
the city, and fear that increased density will mar that image. And thus, the
tendency to try and use price controls to fight market demands.

------
wmf
If you need an affordable car, you wouldn't look for a brand new car. You'd
buy a used car. Even if the government was willing to subsidize your car, it
would be much better to apply that subsidy to a used car.

The analogy isn't perfect, especially when land is a large fraction of the
cost, but it sure seems like new construction is the most expensive possible
housing. Why is San Francisco trying to use their limited budget to create
"affordable" new construction?

~~~
Konnstann
If there isn't enough housing there's no way to make it affordable outside of
the government buying the buildings and instituting rent control, which will
never work given how much hate imminent domain gets and how inefficient the
government is at managing literally anything.

~~~
wmf
Building more needs to be a part of the solution, but what if you built only
market-rate housing and applied subsidies to existing housing?

------
chrisbennet
There is another solution: reduce demand.

If you have certain resources that are limited like parking/sewer/etc the city
would say, you can’t add that building.

In the case of S.F., the housing demand is driven by employees/new businesses.
In much the same way zoning would keep you from adding a new building with no
place to park, the city/county should limit new business creation when there
is no place for the new employees to live.

------
PeterMikhailov
SF's housing market is heavily impacted by the 1 story building height limits
in cities up and down the peninsula, plus in south bay.

~~~
masonic

      the 1 story building height limits in cities up and down the peninsula
    

Which, of course, does not exist in _any_ of those cities, let alone all.

~~~
PeterMikhailov
you know what, i meant to type _2_.

2 story building height limit.

I am shamed.

------
subhobroto
Housing, like healthcare is one of the 3 pillars of a successful community.

The current "affordable housing" is the "subsidized housing" mantra that gets
votes at the expense of taxpayers but does very little to solve the real
issue: SUPPLY

For a successful community EVERYONE should be allowed to live happily
regardless of their income. If I were to get used to paying $300/mo rent for
an apartment that has a $3300/mo market rent, I would probably reconsider
improving my situation - the classic case of good intentions keeping people
down instead of pulling people up.

There is no easy way to improve these but a long road paved with hard and
focused work.

They only kind of people willing to do that would be the actual owners of the
house, so empower them. Remove and reduce power/authority from any other party
that gets in their way to improving the community because of lobbying by
external forces.

My suggestion is this: instead of messing around with cheap politics and
vacuous social signalling, let's petition the government to let you and I
build houses ourselves.

That's right - we build houses ourselves.

If that sounds crazy, maybe it is: It's just like starting a business.
Requires dedication, planning and the most important glue - hard work.
Literally sweat off every inch on your body.

Right now, it's REALLY hard to get good quality construction workers.

Like people who give a shit about the house they are building and even care to
know if they are doing something wrong let alone going back and fixing the
mess they left behind.

Learning construction takes time and finally there is no money you can pay
someone to care about what they are building if they just don't care about
what they are doing.

You and I building our own houses WOULD care.

Because it's in our interest to do so.

After having seen hundreds of garbage new construction where the water runs
the wrong way of the drain in a bathroom, badly done framing, wiring, crooked
doors and all that telltale sign of a developer trying to turnaround property
as quickly as possible so that they can recoup their investment, I feel very
sad when these glorified barns sell for millions of dollars because there is
limited supply.

When the only two options for food are rotting potatoes grade 1 and rotting
potatoes grade 2, rotting potatoes can sell for quite a lot of money.

That's SoCAL realty right now.

Very unfortunate.

I'm not saying we build everything up from the dirt and studs. I'm not saying
this would even work for everyone. This would not make financial sense for the
$300/hr software architect or lawyer. This would not make financial sense for
the physically challenged who cant work with their hands and feet. This would
not make any sense for those who think building a house is something very
magical like maintaining a car or cleaning the furnace filter.

However, it would work wonders for those who are truly desperate for housing.
Those who are willing to put in most of their spare time and effort into
building a home for their family.

Let the government/developer do the really, really hard stuff - the
foundation, the core plumbing, the sewer connections, the mainline electrical.

Maybe a studio minihouse next to a plot of land on a foundation where we can
eat, sleep, commute to work from as we build the rest of the house.

Leave the rest to the owner of the house and property to build over time as
time and money allows without requiring them taking out million dollars
upfront in loans and hope it all works out in the end.

~~~
DavidSJ
_Housing, like healthcare is one of the 3 pillars of a successful community._

What’s the third? Transit?

~~~
subhobroto
Hello David! Thank you for not only reading my comment but taking the time to
think on it

I consider the 3 pillars of a successful community to be : healthcare,
education and infrastructure

So the answer to your question is education.

Perhaps naively I bundle transport, roads, internet, bulidings and the like
into infrastructure.

What are your thoughts on this classification?

