{"id":17361,"date":"2021-01-26T11:16:30","date_gmt":"2021-01-26T19:16:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/?p=17361"},"modified":"2021-01-26T11:16:46","modified_gmt":"2021-01-26T19:16:46","slug":"again-the-chron-pushes-the-yimby-agenda-that-will-never-work","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/2021\/01\/26\/again-the-chron-pushes-the-yimby-agenda-that-will-never-work\/","title":{"rendered":"Again, the Chron pushes the Yimby agenda that will never work"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

But a public bank might actually make a difference. Plus: Rent relief and accountability for business districts. That’s The Agenda for Jan. 24-31<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"\/<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

By TIM REDMOND<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

-JANUARY 24, 2021\u00a0(48hills.org)<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Heather Knight, the Chron City Hall columnist, is the latest on the Yimby bandwagon: Her piece this week argues<\/a> that San Francisco is \u201cone of the most conservative cities in California\u201d when it comes to housing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
Yes, we could have development without displacement \u2014 if the state Legislature weren\u2019t controlled by the landlord lobby. Housing Rights Committee photo via Twitter<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

She cites Sacramento, where rezoning now allows four units of housing on any land where a single-family house is allowed. The idea, Mayor Darrell Steinberg said, is that everyone should be able to live in the city, next to nice areas like public parks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What if San Francisco mayors and supervisors had adopted that vision 20 years ago during the first dot-com boom? Or 10 years ago as we emerged from the Great Recession and saw an influx of tech companies<\/a> and a huge spike in housing prices and rents? What if they\u2019d called for our thriving economy to not leave anybody behind and demanded that people of all income levels be able to live near Golden Gate Park?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

I am getting tired to trying to explain what\u2019s wrong with this picture \u2013 but since there\u2019s an actual potential solution on the horizon, which Knight didn\u2019t mention, let me try again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

San Francisco doesn\u2019t \u201cbuild\u201d housing. Private developers do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Knight says that Sacramento<\/p>\n\n\n\n

plans to allows people to build up to four units of housing on any piece of land now slated for one house.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

That sounds as if your average homeowner or landlord is just going to demolish their place and put up four units, maybe by hand with a few boards and a hammer and saw.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s not how it happens. Construction in San Francisco is expensive, and you need qualified union labor, and materials are costly, and codes (like seismic safety) are in place for a good reason \u2013 and that means if you want to build anything, you need that magic word: Financing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Financing comes from capital \u2013 from banks and investors. And banks and investors don\u2019t give money these days to for-profit projects that don\u2019t offer a substantial return.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And there is absolutely no way that housing affordable to Knight\u2019s \u201cartist, teacher, waiter, custodian or nonprofit worker new to the city and lacking a trust fund or high-earning spouse\u201d will be built by the for-profit private sector right now, no matter what the zoning rules say.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sure: Upzone the Sunset and the Richmond, get rid of all the single-family homes, allow lots of apartment buildings \u2013 but if any housing gets built at all (which is a bit dubious right now) it won\u2019t be affordable to working-class people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because the for-profit private sector, with private financing, simply can\u2019t build housing affordable to working-class people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Peter Cohen at the Council of Community Housing Organizations calls this the \u201cfeasibility monster.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As Sup. Dean Preston notes:<\/p>\n\n\n\n