March 3, 2009
Note To Daly (And Others): Let The Market Take Care Of Itself
From the City Insider:
Supervisor Chris Daly plans to introduce a series of new laws that's intended to help renters during these tough economic times -- a proposal that is likely to anger landlords.
The proposals include the suspension of any rent increases that would cause a tenant's rent to exceed one-third of their income; expansion of the rights of tenants who want to add roommates to help pay their rent; and limiting the amount of "banked" rent increases -- where annual rent increases allowed under city laws are saved up and then imposed at one time -- to 8 percent.
Our note to Daly (and others): stop introducing externalities and let the market take care of itself. If you let it, it will.
∙ Help for SF renters could be on the way [SFGate]
∙ San Francisco Rental Market Weakness: SocketSite Readers Report [SocketSite]
First Published: March 3, 2009 3:15 PM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
And he is labeled a Commie Marxist Traitor Hitler Stalin Nazi in 3... 2... 1...
Posted by: sf at March 3, 2009 3:27 PM
How about just: Assh*le
Posted by: bob at March 3, 2009 3:33 PM
Both sf and bob are right.
Posted by: Conifer at March 3, 2009 3:36 PM
I like the proposals. The distortions it would create would be no larger than those of rent control or prop 13 generally - in fact, probably a whole lot less. It sounds like no one's rent is going to be lowered, just prevented from being raised unconscionably (to more than 1/3rd of income) during these tough times. Landlords are rich anyway, so they should go along with this "shared sacrifice". If I lived in SF, I'd vote for it. For those landlords who bought recently, they should have understood that SF is a very risky place to do business. I hope they didn't overpay.....
(I'm only half-kidding. I really expect that creditor/debtor, landlord/tenant, private/public property issues are all going to descend into basically a free for all over the next few years. Everyone is going to have to vote his own short term interest, just as the politicians are doing.)
Posted by: LMRiM at March 3, 2009 3:45 PM
I used to buy the notion of letting markets work their magic. I believe Greenspan, Bush and the Office of Thrift Supervision did their best to implement just such magic and what was the outcome? The most significant polarization of wealth since the 1890s and a nightmarish Great Recession. I no longer buy market fundamentalism of any kind including those supposedly governing housing supplies in SF. Supervisor Daly, I know you are one vicious dog, but I encourage you to sink your teeth into the balls of any and all sources of capital and rip.
Posted by: Christopher Carrington at March 3, 2009 3:48 PM
All forms of government, and government officials, can be categorized based simply on how much owners are permitted to exercise control over their own property
@sf list of labels isn't far off
And I must compliment LMRiM on his unusual restraint and playfulness. :)
Posted by: DataDude at March 3, 2009 3:52 PM
Patently unconstitutional. Not even close.
That won't necessarily stop the Supes from enacting it "for the good of the people." Of course, "the people" will then have to pay a couple million in legal fees to the landlord attorneys who successfully challenge this asinine idea and the city attorney's office lawyers who lose the lawsuit.
Posted by: Trip at March 3, 2009 3:59 PM
"I like the proposals. The distortions it would create would be no larger than those of rent control or prop 13 generally - in fact, probably a whole lot less. It sounds like no one's rent is going to be lowered, just prevented from being raised unconscionably (to more than 1/3rd of income) during these tough times. Landlords are rich anyway, so they should go along with this "shared sacrifice". If I lived in SF, I'd vote for it. For those landlords who bought recently, they should have understood that SF is a very risky place to do business. I hope they didn't overpay....."
LMRIM - please tell is what part of this you're not kidding about. Hopefully none.
Anyway, this is all just another reason why the second legal unit in my building will continue to be rented to my wine and old boxes of clothes for a whopping $0 per month. No market-based rules = no tenants for me, thanks.
Posted by: marinayuppie at March 3, 2009 4:05 PM
I suppose Supervisor Daly voted in that new TAX that should've been handed to the developers to "Beautify SOMA". After all they're making the mess in SOMA! Funny how we the people get stuck with that cost...where was Mr. Daly when that was voted through??? I agree with sf, bob & conifer.
Mr Daly GO AWAY!!!!!!!
Posted by: samsoma at March 3, 2009 4:08 PM
are you crazy daly? RENTER: if you are at the end of your lease and you don't like your rent, MOVE. LANDLORD: if you think you can live without your current renter and try to fill a vacancy, GOOD LUCK. we don't need a law nor policy pushers to enforce what the market in principle is doing already. hell, most landlords in this environment would prob give you a break in rent if you just ASKED nicely.
Posted by: blah2u at March 3, 2009 4:16 PM
Posted by: Paul Hwang at March 3, 2009 4:18 PM
You read the headline on sfgate.com?!
"Help for SF Renters Could Be on the Way"
Gosh, I wonder where they stand on the issue.
This is infuriating! I'm sick of ignorant supes destroying this great city with their socialist policies.
Posted by: Huja Bradsahw at March 3, 2009 4:23 PM
1/3 of income would be the target, and how exactly would income be verified? Tax returns? What about students or people who deal in cash, like waitresses, bartenders, etc? And who raises rent over 1/3 anyways? Non rent controlled units perhaps, but for a RC unit, the current allowable amount is 2.2%. so for $1,000.00 that's $22.00.
Posted by: Eoral at March 3, 2009 4:27 PM
Let me re-write the release to add some details:
Original: “Supervisor Chris Daly plans to introduce a series of new laws that's intended to help renters during these tough economic times -- a proposal that is likely to anger landlords. “
What the release should have said: “Supervisor Chris Daly plans to introduce a series of new laws that will trick renters in to thinking that he cares about them (he is a rich kid who lives in a condo his parents helped him buy) with a proposal that will basically do nothing and will not anger rich landlords who could fight back and make his life miserable (there will just be a couple of angry press releases from the politically ineffective Small Property Owners of SF). “
> The proposals include the suspension of any rent increases that
> would cause a tenant's rent to exceed one-third of their income;
A tenant can file a hardship application with the rent board today and is almost certain to eliminate any rent increases (or water surcharges, or capital improvement pass throughs)…
> Expansion of the rights of tenants who want to add roommates to
> help pay their rent;
I doubt it if even a single rent controlled tenant has been evicted for adding a roommate (I know many people that have tried this and failed). ..
> and limiting the amount of "banked" rent increases -- where annual
> rent increases allowed under city laws are saved up and then imposed
> at one time -- to 8 percent.
The average maximum rent increase per year for the past 15 years has been under 2% a year (see the link below for the actual numbers), so this is not a big deal and will probably only impact a few people (since landlords that want to raise the rent tend to do it every year and people that have not raised the rent in a decade were probably not just about to do it)…
Posted by: FormerAptBroker at March 3, 2009 4:35 PM
I don't support Daly's plans... BUT
the idea of letting the "Free market" dictate the housing market is laughable.. it's the same speech that people give for deregulating the mortgage industry, financial industries.. look where it got us!!
the free market only exists in economic textbooks -- the question is whether a regulation serves a public good or detrimental...
this one sucks and not thought out...
Posted by: locloc at March 3, 2009 4:37 PM
Talk about a solution in search of a problem. I was just talking with a co-worker and he mentioned that his lease was up and his landlord was going to increase his rent. He took a look around the neighborhood and saw a similar apartment that was for rent for less. He told his landlord about it and said he was thinking about moving. The landlord said he would go look at that apartment and then come back with a new proposal.
At this point any renter that is agreeing to have their rent increased should have to pay it as a stupid and/or lazy tax.
Posted by: Rillion at March 3, 2009 4:41 PM
Christopher Carrington wrote:
> I used to buy the notion of letting markets work their magic.
> I believe Greenspan, Bush and the Office of Thrift Supervision
> did their best to implement just such magic and what was the
Greenspan, Bush, the OTS along with Clinton, Pelosi and the INS are not fans of the free market (I can’t think of a single person elected to high political office in the past 100 years that wanted to “let markets work their magic”. People in government (in both political parties) need to get money to get re-elected so they create problems and then take bribes (typically called legal campaign contributions) to solve the problems. People in different political parties often take bribes from different groups (such as Democrats taking money to “help” farm workers who make $700 a month buy $600K homes and Republicans taking money to “help” banks dump the crappy loans off to Fannie and Freddie) solving the problems of the people that pay them but screwing the rest of us (Farm workers got to buy nice homes with no money down, banks got to dump crappy loans and the rest of us got screwed since we will be paying to bail out Fannie and Freddie until we all die)…
Posted by: FormerAptBroker at March 3, 2009 4:50 PM
the idea of letting the "Free market" dictate the housing market is laughable
Funny. It seems to work pretty much everywhere else.
The numbers of CL rentals is way up and prices are down. It seems the market can take care of itself just fine.
Posted by: Mikey at March 3, 2009 5:33 PM
I don't see much difference between this and the union-busting angles being worked in Congress these days. Taking advantage of a crisis to push your own preferred economic agenda is no recent innovation. But just because it's pro-littleguy does not mean it's flawed, any more than the anti-labor proposals do. It's just a difference in chosen victims.
Posted by: EH at March 3, 2009 6:06 PM
Gee...Isn't Daly going to run for Mayor soon?
Posted by: Daly4Mayor! at March 3, 2009 6:22 PM
As Miss Lillian said to Jimmy Carter,
Running for President, how nice! President of what?
Daly is running for Mayor of what?
Posted by: Conifer at March 3, 2009 6:28 PM
So True Conifer -- Mayor of what? Even the Gav has given up on SF and moved onto the greater CA...
Mayor of what indeed...
Posted by: Daly4Mayor at March 3, 2009 6:49 PM
Isn't this sort of a subsidy to employers ? They no longer need to worry about giving CoL raises because their employees are not at risk of being priced out of their rental home.
Who knew that Daly was a capitalist crony at heart ?
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at March 3, 2009 6:58 PM
I guess it would be prudent then for current landlords to:
- immediately hit up tenants for any banked rents.
- give notice immediately to any non-rent controlled tenants that their rent is going up to market rate. let them walk if they want to.
- do what you can to attempt to verify tenants current income.
- become less afraid of the Ellis act.
- rewrite leases with the help of an attorney to specifically limit the number of occupants per unit.
Posted by: resp at March 3, 2009 8:04 PM
Full disclosure: I know Chris, and like him. You would be surprised at the number of people in politics who feel the same way. Even the ones who are political opponents. I was just talking to Newsom's ex chief of staff (who also worked for Brown) not a day or two ago and he was talking about how much he respects Chris. He is smart and effective (which is why he drives so many crazy) and I think he gets as much a laugh out of the wealthy/elite anti-Chris hysteria as anyone.
Politicians represent their constituents. District 6 (my district BTW) is primarily renters, and that's who elected Chris despite the best efforts of a number of very well funded groups. There aren't a lot of supervisors looking out for renters the way Chris is. Well ok, there aren't any. You can disagree with his choices, methods, and results. But what you can't deny is that he won both elections handily against better funded opponents, so clearly his constituents believe he is representing their interests.
@formerAptBroker: I've been to Chris's condo. It's a nice enough place, but most of the posters here would sneer at it if it was ever featured on Socketsite. Size, location, furnishings would all fail to pass your muster. As for his parents helping out, I don't have one friend who didn't get some help from their parents buying their first place. And I am not privy to his bank account, but I can tell you based on regular interaction with the Daly's and their two adorable children that they live very frugally, and if he is a "rich kid" then he's one with a lot of class who doesn't display any visible signs of wealth, certainly far less then just about everyone else I know in our age group. If you want to dismiss his policies go for it, but if you want to call him a hypocrite then you should at least have the facts to back it up.
With regards to this particular bit of legislation, I don't see anything that's going to drastically change the lay of the land unless you are a landlord or developer trying to force a tenant out. But it probably won't pass anyways, so you are all getting bent out of shape over nothing.
Posted by: Missionite at March 3, 2009 8:57 PM
Well said. I'm a also a D6 resident, and while I hardly ever agree with him, I respect him for representing his constituents. Even his outbursts seem appropriate to me most of time, as the political culture in this city is so corrupt.
Posted by: amused_in_soma at March 3, 2009 9:38 PM
Not all landlords are reducing rent. I got a notice of rent increase from my landlord on a non-RC apartment. Identical units in the same building are listed on CraigsList for ~$150 less per month. I raised this issue with my landlord and, while she agreed to not raise the rent, she refused to bring my unit to market prices. Bizarre. I'm at a loss to understand her motivation.
Posted by: D at March 3, 2009 9:41 PM
"I'm at a loss to understand her motivation."
I would guess she has an alligator to feed.
Posted by: diemos at March 3, 2009 10:06 PM
Well if you don't move out then her motivation appears to be that she knows you will pay her asking price.
As for Daly, while I don't agree with some of his ideas, like this one, I ended up voting for him last time because of a piece of advertising sent out by those that wanted him out of office. It was a picture of him yelling at a cop. The point of the ad was to try to get me to think how crazy and unreasonable Daly was/is, but what that ad did instead was make me feel that I was glad there was a politician in this town that would stand up to the cops and that the cops at the time needed to be yelled at. While Daly does have his faults he benefits from the fact that the groups that attack him are unpopular with a large segment of SF voters.
Posted by: Rillion at March 3, 2009 10:55 PM
You will find pretty quickly Rillon that the majority of Socketsite regulars are elitist and anti-Democratic.
Posted by: NoeValleyJim at March 4, 2009 12:39 AM
this is just going to be like any other RC laws in the city: sound very unfriendly to landlord, and scare people from wanting to be a landlord,
but not really help the renters in the end.
How many landlord can raise rent in this enviroment? Maybe a handful RC ones that are way below market.
Posted by: ester at March 4, 2009 6:59 AM
> Full disclosure: I know Chris, and like him. You would be
> surprised at the number of people in politics who feel
> the same way. Even the ones who are political opponents.
I have met Chris and can say he is a nice guy, he is also a skilled politician. As a fiscal conservative living in SF I’m friends with many people who are not on the same page as me politically…
> Politicians represent their constituents. District 6 (my district BTW)
> is primarily renters, and that's who elected Chris despite the best
> efforts of a number of very well funded groups. There aren't a lot
> of supervisors looking out for renters the way Chris is.
What I like to point out is that politicians on both sides of the aisle like to make a lot of noise and pass laws that really do nothing. Daly will get a lot of good press and help in campaigns from renters with a law that may help about three people just like GW Bush got a lot of good press and help in campaigns with his anti-abortion restrictions that didn’t really do much.
> @formerAptBroker: I've been to Chris's condo. It's a nice enough place,
> but most of the posters here would sneer at it if it was ever featured
> on Socketsite. Size, location, furnishings would all fail to pass your muster.
> As for his parents helping out, I don't have one friend who didn't get
> some help from their parents buying their first place.
I grew up in Hillsbrough and I have a lot of friends who rent in the city because they can’t afford to buy a place (and have parents that will not help them).
> And I am not privy to his bank account, but I can tell you based on
> regular interaction with the Daly's and their two adorable children that
> they live very frugally, and if he is a "rich kid" then he's one with a lot
> of class who doesn't display any visible signs of wealth, certainly far less
> then just about everyone else I know in our age group.
As a politician it is important to seem like you are “just like everyone else” even if you are the owner of a modest condo in SF and richer than 95% of your fellow Americans it is important to hang out with the homeless for that “street cred” just like we see other politicians who are richer than 99.99999% of their fellow Americans hanging out with “Joe the Plumber” or serving food to the homeless and referring to herself as an “Italian American Grandma”…
Posted by: FormerAptBroker at March 4, 2009 7:05 AM
"let the market take care of itself"
Yeah, right. Like tax deductible mortgage interest payment, prop 13, no tax on capital gains on the sale of your primary residence (up to a very high limit), etc.
Time to stop this nonsense and LET THE MARKET TAKE CARE of housing.
And BTW, I do own a house in SF.
For the first time I actually agree with Daly.
Posted by: anon at March 4, 2009 7:27 AM
>I grew up in Hillsbrough and I have a lot of friends who rent in the city because they can’t afford to buy a place (and have parents that will not help them).
You are talking about me. I don't have any living parents, and we support my wife's mother. We might buy soon, but it's because I worked my ass off building a small business and saved every penny for the past several years. We might even buy a house with an in-law and rent it out, possibly becoming one of the people that this law will "hurt".
Even so, I don't begrudge people who got help from their parents. Is there something nefarious about your family helping you? Has Chris ever passed a law against people who got help from their parents? What exactly is your point here?
>Daly will get a lot of good press and help in campaigns
Campaigns? What campaigns? Do you know what he plans to do after he leaves office? I've talked to him about it on more then one occasion, and out of all the options he has mentioned to me not one of them involved being a political candidate, or cashing in on his political infamy for that matter. Maybe he'll change his mind, maybe he wasn't being candid with me (although it sure seemed like he was) but regardless I think you are being rather presumptuous in assuming his motives when you clearly don't know him very well.
>As a politician it is important to seem like you >are “just like everyone else” even if you are >the owner of a modest condo in SF and richer >than 95% of your fellow Americans it is >important to hang out with the homeless for >that “street cred” just like we see other >politicians who are richer than 99.99999% of >their fellow Americans hanging out with “Joe the >Plumber” or serving food to the homeless and >referring to herself as an “Italian American >Grandma”…
You aren't making any sense, and the weakness of your accusation is plain to see. Whether we are talking about Newsom or Schwarzenegger, I think it's safe to say that having lots of money and living in a nice house is not a barrier to political power. There's no need, reason, or advantage to hiding wealth in politics. If anything it's an advantage to have it and display it.
You are accusing Chris of being a charade. If true I have to say that after all these years of working as a housing activist and fighting battles I suspect you don't have an ounce of the courage it takes to fight (I know I don't) it's a pretty good act he's put on. You could almost be forgiven for thinking he actually cared about these issues and the people he represents.
But something tells me you don't work at his bank, you don't do his taxes, and you don't have any factual basis to label him a "rich kid" who's slumming it for political gain, which, even if true, would not preclude him from effectively representing people who aren't wealthy.
And something else tells me that you are just throwing out personal attacks without a shred of evidence simply because you don't agree with the man. An easy job for an anonymous poster, and the courage it takes to do so is exemplerary.
Posted by: missionite at March 4, 2009 8:59 AM
Daly is genuine, no question. I mean, he met his wife at a rally in Havana. That really says a lot. So I disagree with him a lot. As a resident of D6, when I email him, he emails back.
One thing he can't get away from, though: He qualified for and bought a BMR unit. He then joined the rest of the BoS in approving a massive pay raise for himself/themsleves, which would have disqualified him from owning the unit in the first place.
Now, the BoS (which I despise; it's broken) did actually deserve to get paid a fair wage. But buying below-market housing and then immediately tripling your salary is a bit... hypocritical for a person who's career is all about being a housing advocate.
Posted by: amused at March 4, 2009 9:19 AM
Can't afford rent in SF? Move to Fresno.
Really, enough with the career barista/artist/poets who don't pay income tax, property tax, etc.
But you have to appreciate Daly for wanting to give all the freeloaders the same free ride he gets from mom and dad.
Posted by: Jimmy C at March 4, 2009 9:23 AM
The freeloaders are the "home owners" (money renters) who thanks to their idiotic behavior (and the banks stupidity) brought the economy close to collapse. Just stop whining already.
Posted by: anon at March 4, 2009 9:54 AM
Living in SF is not an entitlement, no more than owning home is.
That said, you don't want a city of bankers, geeks and capitalist pigs only. We do need poets, teachers, house keepers and a few communists. This is SF, after all. The solution is a low cost housing program, not legislation.
Posted by: jj at March 4, 2009 10:04 AM
What do these proposed laws mean to a landlord such as myself?
1. Increased income requirements for prospective renters. So I will now be looking for renters to have an income of at least 3.5x to 4x of my monthly rent along with a job that has some steady upward mobility so I don't have to worry their ability to pay future rent increases. No more teachers, students, government workers, waiters, retailers, anyone in the finance industry, elderly and/or disabled folks who could remotely look like they are either on a fixed income or could lose a job.
2. Rent to only highly educated and high income people since they are less likely to need subsidies from unauthorized roommates.
3. Immediately raise all of my banked annual increases on RC tenants, and make sure they are assessed the allowable increase each year. I had originally wanted to cut my renters a break this year due to the economy but since I'll likely get screwed by these proposed laws I better protect myself.
Posted by: Live Smart at March 4, 2009 10:04 AM
Oh come on now. There are plenty of freeloading renters out there too.
Posted by: anonn at March 4, 2009 10:09 AM
Between Daly and Obamination, this country doesn't stand a chance.
If you want to screw something up, bring the government in and run it. They can't even run the post office or the Golden Gate Bridge without raising rates every year.
What a joke this City has become. Enough with the "poets" who somehow deserve rents 50-75% below market.
Posted by: gh at March 4, 2009 10:18 AM
What a joke this City has become. Enough with the "poets" who somehow deserve rents 50-75% below market.
You rather live with Key Lay and Angelo Mozilo? I'd rather live next door to Allen Ginsburg and Diebenkorn.
Posted by: jj at March 4, 2009 10:23 AM
To clarify my earlier comment, I guess there is not much wrong with a 25 year old poet/artist/barista enjoying the city... that's part of the SF color.
But nobody wants to live next door to a 60 year old poet/artist/barista living in the same filthy flat for 30 years because the landlord can't afford to fix up the building when said freeloader is locked in at $450 a month, which is probably 100% of his reportable income. hence no income taxes paid to support his habits.
At least Ken Lay (deceased/spelling corrected) and Angelo Mozillo (spelling corrected) paid their taxes and maintained their properties.
Posted by: Jimmy C at March 4, 2009 10:38 AM
1. Like you weren't doing this anyways (and if you weren't, shame on you, you should!). I've been in this city for close to twenty years, a renter the entire time, and I've never gotten an apartment without filling out a credit app and proving income.
2. Welcome to supply and demand. As these people become more desirable as tenants, they can command better rental rates. If you think this is going to be a net win for you, you're kidding yourself.
3. Go for it. All it takes is one good tenant to tell you to take a hike and leave for greener pastures, and you are taking an 8.3% loss for the year as you have a unit vacant for a month while you locate a new tenant who might turn out to be substantially worse. You might break even if you get four tenants who stay for every one that leaves, but what if you can't get the same rental rate from the next tenant? And what if your turnover rate starts getting higher, or your units are vacant longer then you planned?
These sort of pissy threats might mean something in a different economy, but in this one they just amount to shooting yourself in the foot. If that's how you want to roll, no one is going to stop you.
Anyways, like I said, the law is unlikely to pass, so you can stop freaking out about it.
Posted by: missionite at March 4, 2009 10:51 AM
hence no income taxes paid to support his habits.
Well, call me a commie, but I have no problem providing roof to homeless addicts. At least they don't make millions people homeless. I rather have people addicted to poetry than $billions.
Posted by: jj at March 4, 2009 10:55 AM
I thought there were term limits. It seems like Daly has been in office for decades.
Posted by: Money Man at March 4, 2009 11:35 AM
What I mean is that these people aren't "poets" or a special class like disabled seniors, they're just ordinary people who Daly empowers to manipulate the system.
Posted by: gh at March 4, 2009 12:00 PM
If you guys think this proposal is absurd, how about no foreclosures in SF? I received an email from Phil Ting who wants to charge the banks for foreclosing on the "powerless homeowners". http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/The-City-must-be-made-into-No-Foreclosure-Zone-40311182.html
Posted by: John at March 4, 2009 12:38 PM
John, this is another one that will never happen. The city pols are just playing the game of projecting how much they "care" for "powerless homeowners" and "the people" without actually doing a GD thing.
The city cannot "tax" lenders (prop 13 prohibits that) but they could initiate a "fee" that must be supported by lots of studies and is no higher than the amount that lenders are shoving off onto city government. They can never meet the requisite nexus and any attempt to impose this fee would be quickly shot down by the courts (and again, we the taxpayer would be on the hook for the banks' attorney fees).
Posted by: Trip at March 4, 2009 1:11 PM
"The city cannot "tax" lenders (prop 13 prohibits that) but they could initiate a "fee" that must be supported by lots of studies and is no higher than the amount that lenders are shoving off onto city government."
Isn't the cost of foreclosure to the city caused by the ex-homeowners? The ones who broke the contract and causing the negative economic impact to the city? Based on Ting's logic, the ex-homeowners are the ones who should pay the city, not the lenders!
Posted by: john at March 4, 2009 2:07 PM
>they're just ordinary people who Daly empowers to manipulate the system.
Seems to me that plenty of wealthy people are empowered to manipulate the system by their political representatives.
I'm struggling to come up with a reason why "ordinary people" should be excluded from this empowerment, particularly if the ordinary people elect the representative who is providing it.
I thought that was what we called Democracy.
Posted by: missionite at March 4, 2009 2:34 PM
Since you in D6 voted for the schmuck, how about only having this proposal effective in D6? The rest of the city didn't vote for him, so why do we have to deal with his shenanigans?
He's the reason why we need to repeal district elections. A fool with a small constituency in a district with low turnout is having a major impact on the rest of the city. Ridiculous.
Posted by: Usually Named at March 4, 2009 10:31 PM
One must give the rent control forces their due. They have convinced many people that buying rent controlled property in SF is plain stupid, and this must have affected the re-sale value of such buildings. Such properties must now be owned by large corporate landlords who are prepared for the rent control laws with suitable armies of lawyers. The real victims, however, are the landlords, often owner-occupiers, of small properties, who are treated the same as corporate owners of huge apartment blocks.
The real question is whether Chris Daly can re-incarnate himself when he is termed out. We are finally rid of Peskin, but the Chronicle hinted that he is still controlling his successors on the supes.
Posted by: Conifer at March 5, 2009 1:09 PM
We are not really rid of Peskin - please. He's still the de facto head of the BOS. It's all fixed. Why do you think newbie Chu was voted president? Likewise, Daly will never give up power. He'll have served 10 years (huh?) on the BOS before he's termed out next year. I'm sure he already has a suitable puppet in mind as his replacement. Besides, no candidate who even appears even semi-moderate can possibly win in his district. It'll never happen.
Posted by: sleepiguy at March 5, 2009 1:19 PM
I'm a D6 renter who also has the luxury of working in the neighborhood, and have been for over 6 years. I've written to Mr. Daly multiple times, always respectfully. I never once heard a reply. Could that be because we disagree? Once I realized I'd never hear back from him, I spoke my mind more directly.
Chris Daly is an absolute monster, he only won by less than 2k votes in D6, and most of those were provided by the elderly racist Filipinos living in the senior citizens' home in central SoMA. Daly does NOT represent the middle class. He represents the dirt poor. He is a communist (hello, rallies in Havana???). I am not being dramatic. I voted for Obama. there's a huge difference.
As a renter with a background in economics and having lived in NYC, I can say that rent control does NOT work. Chris Daly's self styled progressive politics are perhaps genuninely motivated, but I would be hard pressed to find a politician with whom I disagree more. His tactics are a disgrace to the city (shouting, telling constitutents to "F*** off" in a supervisors' meeting when they came to comment, not even letting a high school girl comment on his horrific proposal to eliminate the San FRancisco Zoo."
Chris Daly is the reason Term Limits were invented. I will volunteer and give money to any candidate who opposes him in any election, anywhere. He's as far out of the mainstream on the left as Rush Limbaugh is on the right.
in the meantime, he's now trying to pass on these same non mainstream values by being the chair of a democratic committee that evaluates candidates running for office.
Now you know where someone else in D6 stands.
The biggest problem with SF politics--the mayor has no real power, and the supes are elected by a minority of the voters, and they have the power. in NYC Giuliani was able to get things done because he had the power to do so.
I'm no Newsome cheerleader, but if you do your homework and read the city charters, you realize this is so.
That's why our schools are failing, public transportation is a joke, and the city is quite literally (especially here in D6) filthy with homeless urinating, dog feces, litter, etc. We just passed the biggest boom in history, and SF is the poorer for it--nothing done to improve infrastructure.
Posted by: Melinda at March 6, 2009 10:34 AM
I'd like to add one more thing--crime in this neighborhood is UP in 6 years, we have major theft and break-ins every day (I see the glass on the street on my way to work). There are people shot here on the weekends. There is a drug dealing operation happening openly at the liquor store on 3rd and harrison. Daly pissed off so many of the cops that I believe they don't bother with D6 just to get back at him.
I hope Chris Daly reads this--the middle class hates you Chris. Hates. you. Keep befriending the lowlifes, scum, bottom feeders at the expense of the people who work hard, pulled themselves up from nothing, and pay taxes. We're sick of it--it's politics like yours that made people recoil and vote for Bush, et al.
Take a page, Mr. Daly from the Obama book and try to get along with people. But I guess you are too old to learn that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Che Guevara you are NOT!
Posted by: Melinda at March 6, 2009 10:42 AM
If rent control had been tightened 10 years ago, then complete failures such as City Appartment's may have been avoided: they wouldn't have been able to promise the insane ROIs they convinced UBS with...
Sometime regulation is good - to avoid the "irrational exuberance" that markets sometime have.
Today, as many other comments say, it's probably just a political operation from our friend Daly to look good...
Posted by: Faria Lima at July 14, 2009 8:54 AM