>PMCers have no "right" to live here just because they have the
>market clout to outspend working class folks who currently live here
>for housing.
The Constitution protects freedom of movement. Owners have the right to
sell, and generally to rent, to the highest bidder. So, actually, those
with money *do* have the right to outbid current residents, whether they
like it or not.
> On the other hand, current residents do have the right
>to use their political capacity to try to prevent PMC expansion at
>their expense.
As they also have the right to demand a regulatory framework that
encourages more and better housing, just like we do for transit.
But I must ask: where do you draw the line? When do you tell newcomers,
"sorry, no new entrants, we've got a very nice city but you can't come
in?" Today? Last year? 1995, when I moved here?
What do you tell "working class" newcomers, who have virtually zero
chance of finding decent rental housing, unless they are willing to pound
the pavement for literally months? "We've protected the SF working
class, but you don't count?"
>
>Apart from neoliberal (aka libertarian) dogma, what reason is there
>to believe this? Another alternative is subsidized cooperative housing.
Simple supply and demand. Fixed supply + increasing demand = rising
prices, or shortages, or both. Which is exactly what we have now in
Northern CA / SF housing.
Unless you expand the total housing stock, you will have a shortage. All
the subsidies in the world won't change that.
If SF weren't so *nice*, of course, we wouldn't have this problem...
A
Andrew Sullivan
s u l l i . o r g andrew@sulli.org - www.sulli.org
1668 Grove, SF CA 94117 - 415 673 0626