[Noisebridge-discuss] Bay Area Renter's Federation @ Noisebridge

Corey Johns corey at x64.co
Wed Nov 4 17:56:54 UTC 2015


Agreeing on the problematic nature of hosting political events. Someone a few months back wanted to host some meetings to coordinate campaigning for Bernie and I don’t think anything ever came of it, not because people were unsupportive but because it was unclear where we would stand as an 501(c)3 if challenged on the matter. Several lawyerish/law-knowing people chimed in but I don’t think official legal counsel was every received.

I’d be remiss, however, as an SFBARF member and someone very politically active in SF, not to chime in on some of the other comments.

I’m very pleased with the results regarding measures A, D, and I—A is a drop in the bucket but is a good start; D is just so beneficial to everyone (1500 units, 33% affordable) that the only ones opposing are essential NIMBYs and people with the absurd demand of 100% affordable units; and I is well-meaning but, as various reports from the City Controller shows, as well as basic economic rules would imply, just going to make the situation worse. I was about 50/50 on F, and even though I voted against I think there is still a lot more to be done in regulating house sharing platforms.

Praveen’s response is troubling to me because, in advocating for increasing housing supply, I feel I am also opposing displacement—I resent an accusation that building is going to lead to further people getting priced out. Recent history shows that demand to live in San Francisco has sky rocketed while building in the city has been notoriously difficult. As a result of the constrained supply, prices have went through the roof, and it’s been this economic reality that has caused lower income people to be priced out of the city.

Staying the course and restricting construction even more in order to fix things is the definition of insanity: repeating your actions but expecting different results. Unfortunately, the housing market is out of control and even if we start building immediately and with gusto, it’s not going to correct itself for a while. And this isn’t some libertarian “let’s pave the planet” approach, as people in opposition are so quick to caricature SFBARF as being.  There are environmental arguments for increased building in cities, versus allowing exodus to suburbs where construction will destroy previously untouched land through urban sprawl.

This is my argument for building, and I don’t think it’s at all right-wing, except to say that it is probably more-right than the incredibly left-wing view of total regulation that moratoria represent. I would suggest rather than flinging insulting terminology around, you meet argument with argument, and leave the “die techie scum” nonsense at home.

Corey

> On Nov 4, 2015, at 9:10 AM, Corey Quinn <corey at sequestered.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 8:00 AM, Torrie Fischer <tdfischer at hackerbots.net <mailto:tdfischer at hackerbots.net>> wrote:
>> 
>> What are the feelings of me (or someone approximately me) stewarding a YIMBY 
>> convention at the Noisebridge in early december, as organized by the BARF?
> 
> Stepping aside entirely from the politics of this specific situation, this is problematic. Hosting political events throws Noisebridge's 501(c)3 status into jeopardy.
> 
> -- Corey
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20151104/28106951/attachment.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list