
I Have Read Prop F - _sentient
https://medium.com/@emeyerson/prop-f-is-worse-than-you-think-17e395ca8761
======
No1
I saw some campaign propaganda today.

One side of the flier has a guy named Aaron Peskin imploring me to vote yes on
Prop F and Prop I. Prop F is the mess thoughtfully critiqued in this write-up,
Prop I is a moratorium on building new market-rate housing. Oh, and he's on
the "more affordable rent" campaign platform, because if you want to make rent
more affordable, clearly the best way is by preventing construction of market-
rate housing. It's like SF voters are brain-dead.

The flip side of the flier derided another candidate. If the point of the
flier was to make me aware of which candidate to not to vote for, mission
accomplished.

~~~
thrwwy707
>Prop I is a moratorium on building new market-rate housing

Are these people completely insane? Shouldn't there be propositions for denser
zoning, land reclamation, or other measures that would increase the SF housing
stock? Houston has famously lax zoning laws, and as a consequence has seen
much greater population growth (31% vs 18% from 1980-2010 per wikipedia) yet
experienced none of these same problems.

~~~
Wingman4l7
Lax zoning laws has created its own set of problems for Houston -- infamously
horrible sprawl, for one.

~~~
ska
Not sure why you are getting downvoted.

Houston's lack of zoning laws (there are HOAs, mind) has certainly created its
own set of problems. A friend of mine once described it as less of a city and
more of a vast collection of suburbs connected by strip malls - and that isn't
entirely unfair.

Whether you view it as "horrible sprawl" or "affordable housing" sort of
depends on where you sit, I guess.

------
on_
I Have Read this Medium Post.

The author makes a great case against Prop F, prop F seems like a totally
shitty law and isn't going to fix the housing problem. It sounds like that
isn't what the law is about anyway, but there is a great way to fix the
housing problem. The argument he seems to allude to in his notes, is that
people seem to choose sides based on their sentiment surrounding the current
resedential/housing market.

In economics there are 2 forces at the heart of most problems. These are
called "supply" and "demand" and they govern price. SF has not been keeping up
with it's infrastructure, is a decade behind in new construction, and building
new resedential properties will take ~5-10 years to complete. They are not
actively building properties that will sufficiently meet demand even now. So
this won't go away.

Unfortunately, people who paid a lot for houses have a vested interest in not
raising supply, and the amount of regulation surrounding new construction
creates massive amounts of friction. It will be interesting to see how this
problem get's solved. I agree with the author though:

It is not going to be Prop F.

~~~
ubernostrum
Of course, California also interferes with the market to discourage selling
real estate. Proposition 13 disconnected property tax rates from the value of
the property (by capping the increase in assessed value at 2% per year, far
below the increase in actual market value).

Which created a massive incentive to hold real estate as long as possible
without selling, since the only time the tax rate can reset to being based on
market value is at the time of sale.

~~~
bcoates
Proposition 13 didn't do that; the various governments who petulantly refused
to adapt their tax regimes to the Prop 13 limits did. The bizarre incentives
created by almost 40 years of attempting to strong-arm voters into giving
power back to legislatures could be fixed by legislatures without doing
anything to Prop 13.

~~~
Redoubts
What exactly should they do?

~~~
skuhn
Don't make all of your money from a property tax that does not increase as
your costs to provide services increase.

There are options besides property tax for raising tax revenue. City-level
local income tax is the first thing that comes to mind.

~~~
aidenn0
Are you proposing abolishing property tax? Because nowhere in ubernostrom's
post did he talk about city revenues, just about the perverse incentives to
land-owners by Prop 13, and those will exist unless property tax is
eliminated.

~~~
skuhn
I didn't respond directly to ubernostrom, and my comment doesn't discuss
whether prop 13 creates a perverse incentive for landowners in any respect
(although: it does).

I'm saying that if you tie your revenue stream (i.e. taxes) to something that
is essentially fixed at 1970's levels, but you have to buy things with it in
2015 money, you are going to not have a good time.

You can still keep property tax as part of your revenue stream, but these
governments need to diversify. I would personally rather they diversified into
income tax than some of the alternatives, such as red light cameras.

~~~
steven2012
Nothing is fixed to 1970s levels. Property taxes get reassessed when there's a
sale on the property. How many properties in CA have not changed hands since
1970, ie more than 40 years? Probably none, since that's almost 2 generations
of families.

~~~
skuhn
I think you might be surprised. There are a ton of exceptions to reassessment
[1]. A notable one is that transfers from parent to child are typically
excluded, meaning that you can indeed pass down low property taxes from
generation to generation.

Commercial property is also covered under the same rules, and there are ways
to keep it from being reassessed [2][3].

Improvements to the property will trigger reassessment, if the changes pass a
certain threshold. This incentivizes owners not to improve their property
(particularly externally). Look around San Francisco, and you can see the
effect this has had (along with other factors like rent control). Anecdotally,
I've heard of people replacing one window a year because they didn't want to
trigger a reassessment. That is just flat out absurd.

There is a cottage industry dedicated to avoiding property tax reassessment,
entirely because of prop 13. This isn't how it works elsewhere in the country.
There are other, better solutions out there. However, it is virtually
impossible to alter or repeal prop 13 because it was a ballot proposition --
it will outlive all of us.

[1]
[https://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/faqs/changeinownership.htm](https://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/faqs/changeinownership.htm)

[2] [http://closetheloophole.com/history](http://closetheloophole.com/history)

[3] [http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-
alert...](http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-
alert/article23689426.html)

~~~
steven2012
Prop 13 is across California, not just San Francisco. You're saying that home
sales in CA have been suppressed because of Prop 13? You would be wrong.

There are about 6M housing units available in CA, and about 500k sales per
year. That's an entire turnover of inventory in 12 years. Your anecdotal
evidence is interesting but wrong.

~~~
skuhn
I did not state that property sales have been suppressed, I said that property
tax revenue has been suppressed. My particular anecdote was around property
improvement, not sales. And once again, a property sale does _not_ mean that
reassessment definitely occurred.

However it is hardly groundbreaking to state that prop 13 has created a "lock
in" effect [1][2][3][4].

[1] [http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~miwhite/wasi-white-
final.pdf](http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~miwhite/wasi-white-final.pdf)

[2]
[http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/2008-19151-1.p...](http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/2008-19151-1.pdf)

[3] [http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/prop-13-california-
housin...](http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/prop-13-california-housing-
lottery-new-home-sales-no-2011-summer-bounce-real-estate/)

[4]
[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/realestate/07california.ht...](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/realestate/07california.html?ex=1182830400&en=3831f57bb981c487&ei=5070m)

~~~
steven2012
Yes, actually you did say that property taxes are fixed to the 1970s, which I
said was wrong.

Based on the level of home sales and the current median home prices, it's safe
to say that there is more than enough turnover to reset property taxes, and
the idea that property taxes are fixed to the 1970s, which was your initial
statement, is utter nonsense. Linking articles that are 10 years old and from
the middle of the housing bust is also nonsense.

No one is talking about prop 13 now because there is more than enough housing
turnover across CA, and more than enough hungry home buyers willing to pay
whatever price, regardless of the property tax.

And since I know you just skimmed the articles you posted and didn't read it,
here's a finding that pretty much talks about today's environment, and it
completely invalidates what you are saying about Prop 13:

"Rapidly rising housing prices may also have contributed to reduced tenure by
increasing home sales, including speculative home purchases. Low mortgage
interest rates over that period may have also increased home sales, especially
for first-time home buyers, which in turn, would decrease average tenure."

~~~
skuhn
Sorry that you're so fixated on prop 13 not contributing to any issues with
local revenue collection or housing shortfalls. I continue to disagree. Either
way though, neither of us are likely to get to express our opinions by voting
in our life times.

To your point that "no one is talking about prop 13": a constitutional
amendment to modify it was proposed 3 months ago [1]. Obviously that will
never go anywhere -- the state can't even pass a balanced budget with
regularity. But then, that's the whole problem with propositions, isn't it?

Otherwise, I think that you can rest easy, your point has been made. You
prefer to make accusations (article skimming! anecdotes that are anecdotal!)
rather than constructive dialogue. Welcome to the Internet, it's full of
people you won't get along with.

[1] [http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-
alert...](http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-
alert/article23689426.html)

------
Mz
Wow:

 _This is where it’s clear the authors overreached and created a toxic spill
waiting to happen.

If the City finds you did indeed host someone or assisted someone else as
such, even for one night, then the City can take action against you.

But then it gets absolutely bonkers. If you didn’t host anyone, or it was just
your Aunt Rose visiting for the weekend, then your cranky neighbor can still
sue you anyway, and the City has to help them do it. And we’re not just
talking about filing suit so the City can collect its fines and fees, but
filing for “special damages” that the neighbors get to keep for themselves._

This sounds incredibly bad.

~~~
abalone
It's a bit overblown. Civil lawsuits cost money to prosecute, so they're
unlikely to be pursued unless there's a good chance of winning.

~~~
cuckcuckspruce
Have you ever lived in a community with an HOA? Some of the people there take
finding violations, infractions, and actionable offenses as their second job,
and will not hesitate to sue you just because. So enabling these people by
requiring the city to help them sue is like dumping a tanker full of kerosene
on a forest fire.

~~~
abalone
No doubt the point of the law is to tap into community activism. But it's
different from suing your neighbor over the hedge you don't like. Prop F is
much more objective and substantive about what constitutes a violation than
your typical HOA covenant: illegal hosting. Neighbors and their legal teams
are unlikely to sue over that unless they think they can really prove a
violation.

------
idlewords
This is a really laudable write-up, whether or not you agree with prop F. The
problem of "sounds good in principle" propositions that are terribly or
deceptively drafted is one that makes every California election a minefield.

~~~
cheepin
That's why a strangely sound election strategy is to just vote no on every
proposition. Most of them have heavy corporate sponsorship and are written to
deceive the public.

~~~
DiabloD3
I don't know why this guy is being downvoted. I've heard the exact same thing
from many friends of mine who have or still do live in SF: just vote no on all
of them, and force the city to do it's job by legislating the usual way.

~~~
simoncion
Downvotes on HN are... strange and capricious. Things that are downvoted for
no apparent reason do tend to get voted back up, though.

(I wish there was a meta.n.y.c where we could discuss things like this. Alas.)

------
pbreit
AirBnB needs to step up and suggest what it thinks are some of the right ways
to handle this. The fact is, many/most leases and HOAs forbid short term
rentals, and for good reasons. As well, many areas are zoned non-commercial,
again for good reasons.

But people certainly should have some degree of autonomy when it comes to
their personal property. The question is, what is it?

What I never understood is why short term rental regulations aren't modeled
more closely off BnB laws than hotel laws. Many jurisdictions have BnB laws
and AirBnBs obviously compare much more closely to BnBs. BnBs typically have
lighter regulation, different taxes, are frequently in residential areas, etc.

~~~
bsder
> But people certainly should have some degree of autonomy when it comes to
> their personal property. The question is, what is it?

That is why we _elect_ people. To answer these kinds of hard questions.

> What I never understood is why short term rental regulations aren't modeled
> more closely off BnB laws than hotel laws.

Part of the whole kerfuffle is because AirBnB was encouraging people to break
the laws _that actually existed_.

For example, if I buy a house in an area zoned "residential", I don't expect
to have someone next to me running different people in an out every week as
part of AirBnB. If you want to do that you should have to be zoned
"commercial", thanks. Then, we'll get to discuss this at the next council
meeting when you ask for a zoning exemption. If it's your hunting lodge,
probably nobody is going to object. If it's right next to the elementary
school, people are probably going to complain. etc.

~~~
fraserharris
The heart of your argument is that there is some clear distinction between
residential and commercial which doesn't actually exist. Residential
properties have always been used for profit - its called an apartment. These
visitors are renting in a residential area precisely because they want a
residential experience.

The "burden" on your neighbors from short-term visitors is highly overblown.
What actual impact on the elementary school is short-term visitors going to
have? Is their driving to & from the home ever so more frequent than a full-
time occupant? Do you think they are having rowdy parties despite self-
selecting to stay in a residential neighborhood? Or that they would be a
pedophile (which federal laws already ban from staying within a short distance
from an elementary school?)

~~~
s73v3r
"The heart of your argument is that there is some clear distinction between
residential and commercial which doesn't actually exist. Residential
properties have always been used for profit - its called an apartment."

That's a completely different situation, and not at all relevant to this
conversation.

"These visitors are renting in a residential area precisely because they want
a residential experience."

And I want a pony. Why should I care what they want?

"The "burden" on your neighbors from short-term visitors is highly overblown."

You're gonna have to prove that.

~~~
tg3
What is the burden of short-term visitors? I've heard that said before, but
I've never heard any actual examples of problems that occur from short-term
visitors that aren't present with long-term residents.

~~~
bsder
Bedbugs are one of the big ones that I have heard reported where landlords had
to pump a lot of money in. The risk obviously goes up linearly with the number
of unique visitors. A very genuine problem when one tenant of a multi-unit
decides to do AirBnB.

As for detached dwellings? If you're hosting out of country people, how do I,
as your neighbor, prosecute them if they damage my property (bust a fence, hit
my car, swim in my pool)?

I can keep going, but our current laws were set up with the recognition that
transiency does represent a risk. Clearly people _DO_ recognize this as a risk
or it wouldn't be explicitly banned by so many HOA agreements.

~~~
mrgordon
The fact that something is banned by HOA agreements hardly proves its risky or
even seen as such. I've seen many HOA agreements that ban painting your house
a non-approved color.

I'm not sure I follow your comment about detached dwellings and foreign
visitors. The biggest issue will be identifying who harmed your property which
will be significantly easier if your neighbor used Airbnb as their
identification will be on file. Whereas if they just drove by and damaged your
property or stayed at your neighbors house through a less formal rental system
that will never be as well regulated (Craigslist, local word of mouth, etc.)
or a hotel a mile away then it would be much harder to track them down.

------
rl3
Serious question: has subterranean housing ever been considered for SF? If you
can't build out or up, may as well build under.

Feasibility aside, the only problem I see is it'd create a literal
underclass—as opposed to the proverbial one that exists now as a result of
absurd rent prices.

~~~
steven2012
It's either bedrock you'd have to drill through, or sand. I don't think it's a
good place to have underground dwelling.

------
beatpanda
>I have been a part-time homesharer

You have not. You are a rentier. You are running a business. Please stop this
violence against the English language.

I use hospitality exchange websites to actually share my home, that is offer
my home as a place to stay free of charge. What people do on AirBnB, VRBO, and
others is not sharing, it's commerce, and we have different words for
describing that.

Appropriating the language of mutual aid and generosity to describe a business
transaction is insulting. Please stop it.

~~~
MichaelGG
Yeah I agree that abuse of "sharing" as a term is silly. I'm no longer a
software designer. I'm a "Software Design Knowledge Sharer".

------
Marazan
If you had to divide the world into people who are pro or anti airbnb then I
am anti-airbnb. But prop F is horrible beyond belief.

~~~
TranquilMarmot
Why would you say you are anti-airbnb? Just curious if it's their business
practices, renters themselves, or what. I've only had positive experiences
with airbnb.

~~~
beachstartup
i'm anti-airbnb. i prefer to stay in hotels or professionally managed vacation
rental units.

for example, there's absolutely ZERO chance a hotel will cancel your room on
you 12 hours before you show up in europe.

~~~
kleinsch
Clearly you've never showed up at a hotel that's full despite having a
reservation. I have.

------
luckydata
reading the proposition would help, but that's beside the point ain't it?

Someone really needed to let us know how fantastic things are when the gubmint
gets out of the way. Got it.

~~~
dang
Please stop posting uncivil comments to Hacker News.

We detached this subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10281311](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10281311)
and marked it off-topic.

------
bsder
Edit: Thread parent lost due to moderator detach:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10281311](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10281311)

Houston also has _four freakin ' beltways_ (I610, TX 8, TX 6, and TX 99).

Comparing a city that is the poster child for "sprawl" with a chunk of real
estate that is more than a little landfill and locked on 3 sides with water is
more than a little disingenuous.

Houston's second beltway would encircle San Mateo, some of Oakland, and
Sausalito if transplanted to San Fransico.

If transplanted to San Francisco, Houston's _fourth_ beltway (TX 99--currently
under construction) would encompass almost all of San Pablo bay, Walnut Creek
(maybe even as far as Concord), easily all of Oakland, Hayward, and Redwood
City. And be more than 50% underwater.

The differences are more than the "gubmint reg-you-lashion" my good man.

~~~
selectodude
The density of Brooklyn is almost double San Francisco, and I wouldn't
consider Brooklyn a very high rise city.

~~~
bsder
> The density of Brooklyn is almost double San Francisco, and I wouldn't
> consider Brooklyn a very high rise city.

What are you smoking? I want some of that.

Brooklyn has a density of 35,369.1 people per square mile.

That would make it the 5th most dense city in the US. Behind only other New
York areas. It would even put it in the top 10 in density for Europe.

What the hell _DO_ you consider a dense city?

~~~
bsder
Downvoting because you can't refute inconvenient facts? Nice.

------
timr
It's really quite remarkable that you can know so little about something, yet
be so judgmental about it at the same time. Go 'mericuh!

Prop I is a _temporary_ (18 month) moratorium in one neighborhood (the
Mission), for only a limited subset of projects, coupled with the requirement
that the city has to create a "neighborbood stabilization plan" by the end of
that period [1].

It is _not_ a _" moratorium on building new market-rate housing"_, as you say.

The idea is that the Mission is undergoing a land-grab by speculators, that
poor people are losing (they are), and that the battle will be over by the
time a coherent plan is formulated to do anything about it. Whether or not you
believe this to be the correct approach, it does nobody any good to
mischaracterize it as something that is _obviously and painfully stupid_.

I realize it's not at all fashionable on HN to point out that life is more
complicated than chapter one, paragraph one of a high-school economics
textbook...but prop I might actually be a good idea over here in the real
world, where _actual poor people_ are being evicted from the only places they
can afford in the city, at alarming rates.

[1]
[http://ballotpedia.org/City_of_San_Francisco_Mission_Distric...](http://ballotpedia.org/City_of_San_Francisco_Mission_District_Housing_Moratorium_Initiative,_Proposition_I_\(November_2015\))

~~~
toby
Just want to point out that some of us have read the full text of the
Proposition, know exactly what it does, and the rationale, and still think it
will be completely ineffective.

For example, SF's Chief Economist:
[http://sfcontroller.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid...](http://sfcontroller.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=6742)

~~~
timr
The point of the moratorium is not to affect prices; it's to give the city a
chance to come up with a plan that _will_ protect affordable housing in this
one neighborhood, without losing the ability to act.

Viewed in that light, this report is a vote for the plan, not against it: it
gives a little breathing room, and probably won't affect prices either way.
Whether or not it "works" is entirely speculative: someone has to come up with
an actual solution in the longer term.

I believe the advocates of this proposition want the city to buy the remaining
vacant lots in the Mission, and use them to build affordable housing projects,
but I could be wrong about that.

~~~
toby
I understand that. It's actually addressed starting on page 26 of the report
-- basic conclusion is that a landowner / developer will more likely hold the
land until after the moratorium (when it will be even more valuable due to the
moratorium) than develop below-market units at a lower price.

I've worked hard to understand both sides of the issue. In practice what I
strongly believe will happen is that ~800 market rate units will be delayed
for 18 months, nothing else will change and the politicians who pushed this
won't be taken to task because they're all terming out and eyeing Sacramento.

------
gkop
The Sharebetter campaign website mentioned is totally biased, it's true, and
it does seem likely that hotel interests are in no small part behind Yes on F.
And I have no doubt F contains (perhaps really bad!) flaws.

But this Medium post is also rife with misleading statements and hyperbole,
and therefore hypocritical in light of the author's "here's the facts" tone
(not a huge surprise since the author earns income from Airbnb, but still
annoying):

> (Imagine if we were living under the “MySpace Law” of 2006, eh?)

Hyperbole and strawman; _who_ is calling it the "Airbnb Law"?

> to assist anyone to offer (emphasized twice) > What does “assist” mean?
> Cleaning a house before guests arrive? Proofreading someone’s listing?
> Helping a family member find temporary housing? Nobody knows because it’s
> undefined in the text, even in the lengthy Definitions section. The judge
> will decide what it means.

Clearly this is referring to _the marketplaces_ and holding them accountable.
If I can figure that out, any judge can.

> But wait, there’s more! How do you feel about criminal penalties? ... Six
> months? (in jail)

The author is a "long-time SF resident" and pretending that an SF judge would
want to jail somebody over renting out on Airbnb illegally?

> If you host someone in a room in your home for less than 30 days, you best
> not miss a quarterly report of dates and durations. You’ll be violating the
> new law.

 _If it 's a paid rental_. That's the whole point of the law! In order to
regulate the short-term rentals, the city needs you to report your rentals.
And remember, up until this year it was completely illegal to rent for less
than 30 days.

> Why are in-laws banned, even for one night per year? Nobody knows.

The reason Prop F bans in-laws that they are a hot-button issue, generally
speaking, to do with the legality of the construction of the units and the
connection thereof with new rent-controlled housing units (IE the city may be
willing to bless your unpermitted in-law, _if you rent it out under rent
control_ ).

ps. did anybody else get "Aw snap!" opening the post in Chrome?

~~~
toby
> The author is a "long-time SF resident" and pretending that an SF judge
> would want to jail somebody over renting out on Airbnb illegally?

It seems like giving judges that power because "they obviously won't use it"
has gotten us into a lot of trouble in the past.

~~~
mrgordon
Agreed, the law shouldn't say you can send someone to jail for 6 months if we
don't think that is reasonable

