SF Prop. C homeless tax — measure to raise $300 million a year wins with 60%

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by Obadno

This will not solve the problem, the issue with homelessness isnt that there is no help, or charity or services available, the problem is many court cases, laws and policies were enacted in the 1980's that prevented involuntary commissions into mental hospitals.

The chronic homeless problem isn't because there is no help, its because the homeless are incapable or unwilling to seek that help out and if they arent willing to take the help there is little to no legal recourse for the city or state to force them into help.

The homeless issue is a direct offshoot of the demonetization of mental hospitals most famously done with One Flew Over the Cooko's nest. And dont get me wrong, there were abuses but those were very overblown, the vast majority of patients were treated well.

Even treatments like "electroshock" which people think of as literally electrocuting people is a urban myth, electroshock was targeted low voltage electrical impulses, they didnt work but it wasnt the electric chair.

Anyway, the only way to fix homelessness is to give power to the cities to involuntarily comitt the mentally ill/drug addicted that are perpetually living on the street. Im sure we could find a way to have adequate checks to limit abuse as much as possible.

Yeah, that's a big part of it. I wish they'd offer money to homeless women to go on birth control. There are too many kids living in horrible, crime-ridden motels here in Denver. They end up in the same cycle as their mothers most often.

I don't know what the real solution is. It seems to be increasing all across the U.S. and even the world. Maybe this is what happens when earth becomes overpopulated and we spiral into chaos.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by COtoOC

I could swear I read about SF, maybe 10 years ago, giving money directly to the homeless, which in turn just attracted more homeless to the city. Maybe I'm wrong. But I think there's definitely a risk of attracting more homeless people if the gettin' is too good.

The state of California, not just SF, has form of welfare called General Assistance which goes to single adults not eligible for family support, disability benefits or other forms of direct welfare grants.

Who can get GA?

To be eligible for GA, you must:

Be a county resident.
Be age 18 or older, or
An emancipated minor, or
A child under age 18 who has no means of support. (There are special rules for children. The county will need to be sure the child is safe and may refer the child for a foster-care evaluation.)
Be low-income. Your “income” and “resources” (like a bank account) must be below the financial limits set by your county. The home you live in does not count as a resource.
Be a citizen or have legal immigration status.
Follow the county rules. The county may have other rules you need to follow to qualify for GA.
Time limits and work rules

Most people can only get GA for 3 months out of a 12 month period.
Most counties require that you do job search or a work program. (If you do “workfare” where you work at a job the county assigns to you to get benefits, you do not have to repay the GA for that time.)
If you cannot work because of a disabling condition, there is no time limit on how long you can get GA.

https://lsnc.net/self-help/general-a...nce-county-aid

This benefit is totally funded by the county, in this case the City and County od San Francisco, and so the amount and the specific rules vary by clounty. San Francisco's benefit amount has always been among the highest if not the highest, but still it is not much. I couldn't find the current amount but in 2011 it was $342/month (by comparison, LA's amount was $221/month).

[Pedestrian]

Concerning the at risk for homelessness population, SF also has a comparatively (compared to most other cities) extensive "affordable" housing program.

In 2016, San Francisco voters passed Proposition C, which substantially increased the city’s inclusionary housing requirements — the percentage of affordable housing that every new market-rate development must either include on site or pay to build elsewhere. Developers called the increase onerous, leading to a series of negotiations after the election.



While subsequent legislation modified the on-site requirement, the offsite number was never lowered, meaning that a market-rate developer building a 100-unit housing project must pay the city the cost equivalent of 30 units of affordable housing. The city’s payment schedule lists the offsite costs as ranging from $198,008 per studio unit to $521,431 per four-bedroom unit. Typically, a market-rate developer must pay these fees to the city upon pulling a building permit.

Unfortunately, due to a variety of factors — rising construction costs, high land value, high impact fees including those from Prop. C, and the softening of the rental market — market-rate developers are applying for building permits at a much lower rate than in the past few years. This means the city is not collecting offsite fee payments in sufficient quantities to build new affordable housing that is already going through the planning process. When developers are able to start construction, they are most often opting to build affordable units on site, depriving the city of funds that could be paired with low-income tax credits and other financing sources to develop 100 percent affordable housing projects.

https://www.spur.org/news/2018-11-08...rdable-housing

In other words, the city is building $500,000 4 bedroom apartments for families unable to afford market rate (often rent-controlled) rents in the city. This is not an expense to the city itself since it is funded by private developers who are mandated to build it under the formula in the article.

The housing itself is pretty darned nice (as you might expect giving what the units are costing to build). Here is an entirely "affordable" off-site building going up:


https://www.spur.org/news/2018-11-08...rdable-housing

This is not "public housing". Generally the builder/developers are private non-profit agencies with contractual relationships with the city. The occupants of the housing usually are employed and can have substantial, though usually below city average, incomes.

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

“Unfortunately, due to a variety of factors — rising construction costs, high land value, high impact fees including those from Prop. C, and the softening of the rental market — market-rate developers are applying for building permits at a much lower rate than in the past few years.”

It’s hilarious how the list of things that might be causing developers to build less doesn’t include the incredibly high tax on development that is the affordable housing requirement.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by Khantilever

It’s hilarious how the list of things that might be causing developers to build less doesn’t include the incredibly high tax on development that is the affordable housing requirement.

Yeah, it's like everything you hear about San Francisco is how they're pretty much doing everything in their power to drive housing prices up. There is absolutely no reason there should be even a SINGLE affordable housing unit in San Francisco. Affordable housing should be in places that are AFFORDABLE. Nobody is entitled to live in San Francisco. If they can't afford it then they should move to more affordable areas. This tax is just a total, "fuck you" to all the hard working people in San Francisco who pay out the ass for a shitty apartment while all their money is being siphoned away to people who don't do jack shit while living of the government teat.

Really there needs to be some sort of national program for these people. Round them up and ship them to Kansas or somewhere dirt cheap like that to be farm hands. At least if they refuse to work there we won't have to buy them a $500,000 apartment to live in. Jesus fuck, these people are living better than I am right now.

[mhays]

Inclusionary zoning costs projects a bundle. This causes less to get built, which causes scarcity and higher prices, which makes the math eventually work for developers.

Worse, the cost isn't borne only by new buildings. Every existing building that's not under rent control, including everything for sale, now gets to charge way more because of scarcity. Property owners LOVE inclusionary zoning...it's almost as if they wrote the legislation to increase their property values.

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

The state of California, not just SF, has form of welfare called General Assistance which goes to single adults not eligible for family support, disability benefits or other forms of direct welfare grants.


https://lsnc.net/self-help/general-a...nce-county-aid

This benefit is totally funded by the county, in this case the City and County od San Francisco, and so the amount and the specific rules vary by clounty. San Francisco's benefit amount has always been among the highest if not the highest, but still it is not much. I couldn't find the current amount but in 2011 it was $342/month (by comparison, LA's amount was $221/month).

GA in SF is restricted by Care not Cash, the ballot initiative that launched Newsome's political start. Receipients of GA are required to receive the bulk of assistance in housing or services, not outright cash.

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Yeah, it's like everything you hear about San Francisco is how they're pretty much doing everything in their power to drive housing prices up. There is absolutely no reason there should be even a SINGLE affordable housing unit in San Francisco. Affordable housing should be in places that are AFFORDABLE. Nobody is entitled to live in San Francisco. If they can't afford it then they should move to more affordable areas. This tax is just a total, "fuck you" to all the hard working people in San Francisco who pay out the ass for a shitty apartment while all their money is being siphoned away to people who don't do jack shit while living of the government teat.

Really there needs to be some sort of national program for these people. Round them up and ship them to Kansas or somewhere dirt cheap like that to be farm hands. At least if they refuse to work there we won't have to buy them a $500,000 apartment to live in. Jesus fuck, these people are living better than I am right now.

And we're glad they are.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Khantilever

It’s hilarious how the list of things that might be causing developers to build less doesn’t include the incredibly high tax on development that is the affordable housing requirement.

It does--the politicians are aware:

S.F. Supes throw lifeline to nearly 2,300 at-risk housing units
By Hannah Norman – Digital Producer, San Francisco Business Times
2 hours ago

San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors unanimously voted Tuesday to pass legislation to keep 2,298 housing units afloat that are at-risk due to the city’s current permitting process.

. . . This legislation extends the permitting deadline by 18 months for a subset of projects with grandfathered-in inclusionary rates set to expire in several weeks. Among these projects are 340 affordable housing units . . . .

These units are endangered by the city’s “unrealistic permitting deadlines,” in part set by 2016’s Proposition C. At the root of the issue is the measure's 30-month timetable that doesn’t take into account the lengthy entitlement process, which can take years.

Upon the measure's passage, development projects were required to have 25 percent on-site inclusionary housing, 33 percent off-site or pay a fee. Before that, San Francisco only required that developers have 12 percent of units built onsite as affordable, or pay a fee instead.

Some existing projects already in the works were grandfathered in at specific inclusionary rates to avoid introducing new standards mid-project, according to the Mayor's office. The projects were given 30 months to receive their building permits before those grandfathered-in rates expire. As the Dec. 7 deadline approaches, many of these projects have yet to obtain building permits and are thus "at risk of facing new inclusionary requirements that would likely cause them to be abandoned" . . . .

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranc...439&j=85022171

In other words, the Supervisors realize that what they've done will depress new housing construction and are scrambling to mitigate it by allowing projects previously approved with less stringent requirements to keep those requirements and proceed.

[Khantilever]

What’s important to recognize is that the consequences of inclusionary zoning are likely to be very harmful for the very group it is supposedly for (though I agree with the above that it is ultimately a self-serving strategy for property owners).

Much like rent control, these policies provide huge windfalls for a lucky few at many times the cost for everyone else, including the working class and even those less fortunate than the recipients. While I agree with the sentiment that there is something wacky about middle-class workers paying for the poor to live in nicer apartments than themselves, that’s not the biggest concern—nor is it likely to be an effective strategy if that’s the way we frame the debate. Because it’s not just the middle and upper class that pays for it, but also the poor and working class that need to pay for it, since all housing becomes more expensive as a result of such policies.

We have a mechanism to ensure that the poor can find decent housing. They’re called housing vouchers. The reason they’re not popular is because 1) the cost is apparent since it appears on the government budget, as opposed to inclusionary zoning which seems free (though it’s verg much not), and 2) property owners are unlikely to benefit as much.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Khantilever

We have a mechanism to ensure that the poor can find decent housing. They’re called housing vouchers. The reason they’re not popular is because 1) the cost is apparent since it appears on the government budget, as opposed to inclusionary zoning which seems free (though it’s verg much not), and 2) property owners are unlikely to benefit as much.

Property owners do benefit from housing vouchers, at least they do with Section 8. With Section 8, a property owner can get up to full-market value for a housing unit, it just comes from 2 different sources---the tenant pays part of the rent while the rest of it is subsidized by the government. That's all Section 8 is, is subsidized private housing. It is NOT real government owned/provided housing, which is what I wish existed instead of Section 8.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Property owners do benefit from housing vouchers, at least they do with Section 8. With Section 8, a property owner can get up to full-market value for a housing unit, it just comes from 2 different sources---the tenant pays part of the rent while the rest of it is subsidized by the government. That's all Section 8 is, is subsidized private housing. It is NOT real government owned/provided housing, which is what I wish existed instead of Section 8.

The problem with projects is that putting a lot of these sort of people together always means lots of crime. In theory if you spread them out more then they'll learn from their more civilized neighbor's, but if you ask me really you're just spreading the crime out more, not reducing it.

[mhays]

Streamlining permitting is one part. The fact this massive IZ expense is required also increases development costs enormously, which is then reflected in the prices of all the existing market rate housing.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by JoeMusashi

When are San Franciscans and Californians in general going to be at their breaking point? Can you really subsidize every bum, drug addict, mentally ill person, illegal immigrant, criminal, public union employee, poor person, out of stater, environmentalist, and the millions of other people I’m forgetting? This progressive techie hubris, isn’t it reminiscent of what happened to Detroit and the Rust Belt? Is tech invulnerable in California and in the US?

Having only one political party and one ideology in a state of 40 million people is terrifying. Sadly, some want the entire country to be like this and it probably will become that way with California political locusts rapidly bringing their progressivism and leftism to the lower cost states across the West that gave them sanctuary. That’s the scary part about progressivism and socialism, it’s hard to ever step back from it. The mere suggestion makes you bad person (and ostracized) in the eyes of progressive society therefore few people will be brave enough to take a stand being the ‘mean parent/bad cop’. Once people are accustomed to these lavish benefits and government assistance, how can you ever take it away from them without creating a revolution? You just need to keep spending more money to keep people happy.

That’s what California is laying the groundwork for when the only people who can live there are the affluent and the poor. The only question is if it is going to be a Trump style-Revolution or a Marxist one. If it is the latter, then the rich will flee leaving California to become Venezuela.

Whoever said that ‘states are the laboratories of democracy’ was on to something.

California is killing its golden goose just like Detroit. It will have to fall and correct itself but it is a huge state so it will take a very long time.

Remeber Detroit was the wealthiest city in the USA (and likely the world) in the early 1950's. The middle class of california will continue to flee to its neighboring states and Tx, CO, Utah while they continually become a state of uber rich and desperate poor with little in between.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Obadno

California is killing its golden goose just like Detroit. It will have to fall and correct itself but it is a huge state so it will take a very long time.

Remeber Detroit was the wealthiest city in the USA (and likely the world) in the early 1950's. The middle class of california will continue to flee to its neighboring states and Tx, CO, Utah while they continually become a state of uber rich and desperate poor with little in between.

I consider this sort of thing wishful thinking by the nation's envious.

The population of California is continually being renewed with young, aggressive people moving in, both from other states and from foreign countries, to replace the older and retired native born moving out (in many cases using the wealth accumulated in their California homes to fund nice lifestyles elsewhere). Walking the streets of the Bay Area you almost get the impression everybody is in their 20s and from somewhere else or they are Asian.

Detroit had nothing special--no "moat" as they say in finance. You can build cars anywhere and build them just as well if not better. Besides its coastal location and mountainous beauty which makes it hard to leave once you've enjoyed it, CA has a critical cluster of universities, capital and and existing pool of expertise that nowhere else has come close to duplicating. And CA does not depend on a single industry by a long stretch. It is the nation's salad bowl as well as the homes of tech and entertainment and the western center of finance.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I consider this sort of thing wishful thinking by the nation's envious.

The population of California is continually being renewed with young, aggressive people moving in, both from other states and from foreign countries, to replace the older and retired native born moving out (in many cases using the wealth accumulated in their California homes to fund nice lifestyles elsewhere). Walking the streets of the Bay Area you almost get the impression everybody is in their 20s and from somewhere else or they are Asian.

Detroit had nothing special--no "moat" as they say in finance. You can build cars anywhere and build them just as well if not better. Besides its coastal location and mountainous beauty which makes it hard to leave once you've enjoyed it, CA has a critical cluster of universities, capital and and existing pool of expertise that nowhere else has come close to duplicating. And CA does not depend on a single industry by a long stretch. It is the nation's salad bowl as well as the homes of tech and entertainment and the western center of finance.

Its not wishful thinking its what is happening in California, observable every year. The state is almost already a group of hyper-rich and multitudes of desperate poor.

The current direction can be maintained for a very long time because of the resources and wealth within California but it will eventually collapse on itself when enough of the true heavy lifters in tax payment (the middles class) is completely gone.

It cannot last forever and it wont. The stats of today speaks for itself.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Its not wishful thinking its what is happening in California, observable every year. The state is almost already a group of hyper-rich and multitudes of desperate poor.

The current direction can be maintained for a very long time because of the resources and wealth within California but it will eventually collapse on itself when enough of the true heavy lifters in tax payment (the middles class) is completely gone.

It cannot last forever and it wont. The stats of today speaks for itself.

Keep having your fantasy. This state is too big and too diverse for you to understand.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Keep having your fantasy. This state is too big and too diverse for you to understand.

Are you under the impression that I want this to happen? Its most certainly not the case but if you are any indication of the general attitude of people in California I have little hope in you guys not destroying yourselves in the coming decades.

[chrisvfr800i]

Originally Posted by mhays

Some companies have low margins and it would make a difference...construction for example.

Very true.

I've lost bids for .5%.

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Property owners do benefit from housing vouchers, at least they do with Section 8. With Section 8, a property owner can get up to full-market value for a housing unit, it just comes from 2 different sources---the tenant pays part of the rent while the rest of it is subsidized by the government. That's all Section 8 is, is subsidized private housing. It is NOT real government owned/provided housing, which is what I wish existed instead of Section 8.

Correct, which is why I said property owners would not benefit *as much*, but the direct effect of increased demand for housing is positive. That said, it comes with risks from their perspective, since your neighbor might become a Section 8 resident and the negative amenity effect of living near Section 8 residents--unreasonable or not--could easily overwhelm the generally positive effect of increased demand for housing.

Why would government owned and provided housing be superior? A $1 spent on government provided housing provides less choice and flexibility to recipients than $1 given in the form of a voucher. Further, as BrownTown said, concentrating poverty has been decisively proven to be a poor strategy.

That said, I do believe that we need real zoning reform because we are overpaying for housing through Section 8. Homeowners restrict development, drive up housing costs artificially, and then charge us extra through Section 8. Which is why in some areas government actually building housing might be better than subsidizing rents, but as we've seen time and again the community is usually pretty effective at driving up the cost of government-provided housing too by adding tons of red tape and demanding amenities that cause the costs to go up to +$500k per unit. Not sustainable.