Editor's notes - Page 2

San Francisco's bell curve of income distribution is becoming U-shaped

|
(68)

"That's not the one percent," he said. "It's the top one quarter of the top one percent."

And, Allardyce explained, most of the people who buy that level of property are so rich that they don't actually live there. It's a second or third or fourth home, a place to stay a few weeks out of the year. And since the project involves chopping up a tennis and swim club used by some 2,000 people (who are nowhere near that rich), "you're eliminating the use of that land by the general public" in favor of a tiny elite.

The developer says that the city will get money to build 33 below-market-rate units. That's nice; by that standard, 80 percent of the new housing goes to the richest people in the world, and 20 percent for everyone else. That percentage ought to be reversed — and until it is (or at least, until we have a plan to build enough affordable housing for the people who really need a place to live in San Francisco) I can't imagine why we'd want to be doing favors to feed the greed of developers.

What we're doing in this city is making life harder for low-income people who are increasingly living on the streets and doing big favors for the spectacularly wealthy. There's no sanity in our housing policy — except to turn San Francisco even more into a city of the rich.

Comments

Blocks the famous views of our unique hills from the Ferry Building for just another ugly highrise ripoff, this time on public-benefit land. The only ones saying there's a public benefit are the usual don't-make-any-waves hacks and the paid-by-developer spinners.

Posted by Bobby on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 11:20 am

closer to the waterfront? How can that be a policy that ahs stood for 50 years when all the tallest buildings in the city are East of Montgomery?

However, having said that, most high-class cities on the planet attempt to attract the super rich, because they pay a lot of taxes and generally don't consume services.

So even if you suffer from wealth envy (and it's rather fashionable at the moment), you should swallow it and just take their money. At least this way SOME below market rent housing will be constructed. If the city doesn't approve the project, no BMR housing will be built.

Oh, and ditto the America's Cup, by the way. It will bring hundreds of millions of dollars to the city. Again, time to swallow your envy and bite your class warrior tongue.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 11:33 am

"The individual manipulator’s trick of making the problem all about his victim’s emotional response to his, the oppressor’s, own misdeeds is replicated at the social level in memes such as ‘the politics of envy’ and ‘the politics of resentment’. Once these memes have been launched, exploiting our assumption that bad emotions are experienced only by bad people, it becomes very difficult to discuss what the envied or resented parties have actually done to provoke these negative attitudes." ~Hugo Grinebiter

Posted by Guest on Dec. 19, 2011 @ 3:27 pm

it's always sly to quote some obscure scribe who employs opaque aphorisms and syntactic density to disguise a lack of real insight.

Well done.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 19, 2011 @ 3:39 pm

you always say that, do you?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 19, 2011 @ 4:27 pm

The owners of Golden Gateway (1,200 rent controlled apts.) are partners in the 8 Washington deal: they own 80% of the land; its their land that is being upzoned and they will continue to own a major portion of the project if it is built.

Golden Gateway is using a loophole in city law to convert hundreds of its desperately needed rental housing units to short-term vacation rentals/corporate suites. So they are eliminating the very housing we need to stop the flight of families from the city while pushing a project that builds housing only ½ of 1% of all Americans can afford.

Rewarding this behavior by approving 8 Washington encourages more conversions and more vacation homes for extremely wealthy part-time residents. You are right! This project would turn San Francisco’s housing needs upside down. It must be stopped.

Posted by Guest Brad Paul on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 1:56 pm

rent untis on a short-term, vacation basis. And indeed, the restrictions of rent control encourage that.

Particularly given that GG is in a prime downtown location, it's inevitable that those untis will be sued for corporate/tourist use. Makes perfect sense, and it's perfectly legal.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 2:15 pm

It is not legal to turn regular rental housing into essentially an extended-stay hotel. City code specifically prohibits this.

Your attack on attack on rent control would have been exasperating five years ago. Today, it is despicable. Thanks to federal and state governments, property owners have been expropriating from renters through lowered interest rates, which have spurred unnatural inflation. The interest rates lower the debts and lift property values of the most coddled, welfare-ized interest group in America.

Wage earners are not getting raises to keep pace. Low interest rates mean their savings are being gutted. Their rents are rising in accordance with the inflation manipulated on behalf of the ownership society. State government wants to raise their taxes because t needs the money to compensate for all the Prop 13 sweetheart deals and doing foreclosure-prevention work. (Income tax in CA has nearly doubled since Prop 13 passed, and tenants lack the absurd real-estate writeoffs to mitigate the increases.)

Forget eviction-prevention work. "Keeping people in their homes'' means only mortgaged people who can't or don't want to pay their bills. We have no compassion for people who stayed out of the real estate market when it turned spectacularly stupid and irresponsible.

So save your anti-rent control propaganda for another day, when it will be merely annoying and self-servingly dishonest. In 2011, it is an abomination.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 17, 2011 @ 10:40 am

There is no city code that tells a landlord he cannot rent out a place for the short-term. And since rent control only applies for tenancies longer than 30 days, it makes perfect sense. Your "prohibition" does not exist in law.

Technically an additional hotel tax should be charged to the tenant in such cases and it's possible that some tenants don't want to pay that. But that's a separate issue.

If mortgages get cheaper that is not "appropriating" anything from tenants. RC prevents LL's charging more when rates go up, so it's the same deal in both cases.

While if LL costs and taxes increase, then more and more of them will turn to the Ellis Act to get out that business altogether, driving rents up further. If you really want cheap rents, abolish RC and encourage lots of new build rental housing.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 17, 2011 @ 2:31 pm

The city does have a law, the Apartment Conversion Ordinance, that prohibits landlords from renting apartments for 30 days of less. People like the Golden Gateway get around this by rent apartments for more that 30 days to brokers and corporations who then turn around and sublet the units to tourists and consultants for two days, two weeks or two months. One way to limit this loss of rental housing would be to amend the Apartment Conversion Ordinance to say you may not rent or OCCUPY a unit for less than 30 days.

Posted by Brad Paul on Dec. 18, 2011 @ 8:41 am

and those rentals tend to be of differing durations. Just scan CraigsList and you will an entire section for short-term or vacayion lets - these are rental that are typically a few nights to four weeks.

Again, there are now websites that specialize in short-term rentals on our own home.

In none of these cases is the primary purpose of the unit being "converted", say from rental to owner occupied (which is in any event perfectly legal) or from residential to commercian.

And of course, as you note, a unit can also be rented to a third party who then sub-lets it.

Rather than ask that such acts be deemed illegal, you should be asking how convoluted and prejudicial must our current rental laws be that people resort to these strategies. There's your real answer - not playing NIMBY to every new development.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 18, 2011 @ 11:09 am

When a unit at the Golden Gateway gets converted (changed) from long-term housing for families and individuals, where someone might live for 3 to 10 years as their primary residence, to a "rental" use where the person occupying the unit is doing so for a few days to a few months, in lieu of renting a traditional hotel room or a room at an extended stay hotel, that seems like a "conversion" to me. I think most people would agree.

Its converting housing that meets the needs of middle class families and individuals who are residents of San Francisco to rooms that meet the needs of tourists and consultants from somewhere else who will go "home" in a few days, weeks or months. Again, it sounds pretty straight forward to me.

Posted by Brad Paul on Dec. 20, 2011 @ 3:36 pm

would think. The simple fact is that it is not a formal change of use if a rental unit is rented out short-term. Nor that it becomes owner occupied. That's not what "change of use" means.

You may not like the result, but that doesn't make it illegal. And in fact what you should really be asking yourself is why have the rules gotten so invasive that landlords do this in the first place?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 20, 2011 @ 5:22 pm

imposed on housing units. How could such an extreme law ever be imposed or enforced.

I would also remind you that the reason the Ellis Act was passed was precisely in response to municipalities imposing extremely invasive restrictions on housing units - in that case trying to forbid property owners from leaving a unit vacant (in Santa Monica, if you're interested).

Other local laws, such as on vacancy control, led ot the State's Costa-Hawkins laws. You really should read up more on the history of this stuff before advocating such extreme positions. You seem very misinformed for someone making claims of such experience.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 18, 2011 @ 11:12 am

This seems to be a project that the majority of SF residence might be opposed to.

However the usual anti development brigade may have a problem getting the message out. In the past they have opposed so many popular developments no one is willing to listen to them anymore.

Posted by Chris Pratt on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 2:05 pm

don't like this project. We don't have a proposition on every new building in the city.

That's why we elect people like Jordan, Brown, Newson and Lee. Because we trust their judgment to know what is best for the city.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 2:17 pm

The owners of Golden Gateway (1,200 rent controlled apts.) are partners in this deal: they own 80% of the land; their land is being upzoned and they will continue to own a major portion of the project if built.

Golden Gateway also uses a loophole in city law to convert hundreds of desperately needed rental housing units to short-term vacation rentals/corporate suites. They’re eliminating the very housing we need to stop the flight of families from the city while pushing a project that builds housing that only ½ of 1% of all Americans can afford.

Rewarding this behavior by approving 8 Washington encourages more conversions and more vacation homes for extremely wealthy part-time residents. You are right. This project turns San Francisco’s housing needs upside down. It must be stopped or we can expect more.

Next up...75 Howard. Just announced plans to tear down a 7 story parking garage and replace it with 284' luxury condo. Its a partnership between a New York developer and Morgan Stanley. I'm guessing it won't be an affordable project.

Posted by Guest Brad Paul on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 2:08 pm

Obviously a LL is free to utilize vacant units in any way they want.

And a building like GG is always going to have a lot of short-term and corporate tenants.

SF will never have enough cheap housing because cheap housing is very expensive to provide, and the money isn't there. But a new project that funds 34 BMR untis is 34 more than we'll get if we don't build here.

Sometimes I think envy of the rich gets in the way of getting BMR hosuing built at private expense. You have the wrong target here. There's nothing wrong with having more rich people here if they want to come and are willing to pay a premium.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 11:31 am

tenants. If short-term lets are more profitable then why shouldn't they target that market? By your argument, we wouldn't have any hotels - we should house the homeless and poor in all those hotel rooms.

But guess what? If we even tried to enforce that, all those buildings would close down, and none would ever be built.

Far better to build hosuing for the rich and be grateful that they want to live here. Then we take those taxes and try and help the less successful.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 2:21 pm

How can the down payment be $3 million? Even if they're putting 25% down, that means the condos cost $12 millions. That can't be right.

Posted by The Commish on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 5:28 pm

So yes, the SFBG numbers make no sense. But the bigger issue is why they don't wany wealthy people here helping to fund the city's services?

Their envy gets in the way of them understanding that their money can help the economy of this city, and pay for vital services that otherwise will have to be cut.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 5:42 pm

The broker quoted in the article handed in a spread sheet to the Land Use Committee based on current Wells Fargo lending requirements. For a $2.5 million condo you must put 25% down ($625,000) AND the bank also requires, in a separate account, another $493,000 in liquid assets (cash reserves) equal to three years of loan payments and taxes, bringing the total cash you commit to $1,118,000.

For a $5 million condo its $1,750,000 down and another $843,000 in reserves in a separate account for a total of $2,593,000 up front. But your right. Some of these members of the 1/2 of 1% have enough money to pay it all in cash.

As for these new, part time residents helping "pay for vital services", not according to the Port Commission's Term Sheet for 8 Washington. They've committed ALL new tax increment to Port construction projects including building their new Cruise Ship Terminal. You can get the term sheet on the Port website and read it for yourself.

Posted by Brad Paul on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 6:50 am

Many of these buyers will be people whose children have grown up and now want a city case rather than be in the suburbs. The broker will of course prepare mortgage stats as part of the process but it doesn't follow from that that all of the buyers will need a loan.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter. Either way, the condo's cost what they cost, since they have to cover acquisition of the land, construction costs, all kinds of fees and taxes, and of course the setaside for affordable housing.

To the other, if these fees and taxes are earmarked for port projects, then it's still benefitting the city. The general fund won't be on the hook for those expenses.

And of course there's all the sales tax revenues plus payroll taxes for the workers on this project. Everyone wins.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 10:35 am

" 2,000 more-or-less middle-class people"
http://www.westernathleticclubs.com/psrgateway/gg-services-amenities.php

Are you kidding me? The people who can afford the bay clubs membership prices - which are on par with a mortgage in many other states in the US - are more or less middle class?

Talk about cherry picking your facts.

So tell me this Tim Redmond. Imagine I am a developer and I propose to build 40k units of BMR housing in SF. Tell me where I can do this. Tell me where the SFBG would support adding that much housing?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 7:49 am

build BMR housing other than what we get from market-rate construction. There is actually space to build 40K units, in the Se of the city if you build high.

But remember, Tim doesn't really want any housing built - it's the lack of housing that keeps him in business, just like the non-profit poverty pimps.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 10:38 am

The Fitness level membership at the Golden Gate recreation center costs $200 a month for a family and even less for residents of Golden Gateway. The cost of swimming at SF's "public" pools (e.g. North Beach pool) can cost as much or MORE for families and the public pools are open five days a week, vs. seven days a week (with a fitness center) at the Golden Gateway facility. A friend of mine pays $180 per month for a family membership at the Embarcadero YMCA. All three of these facilities: Golden Gateway, North Beach pool and YMCA are used by middle class families from throughout SF.

Posted by Brad Paul on Dec. 18, 2011 @ 9:13 am

it's hugely wasteful of real estate that is that valuable.

A pool can esily be incorporated into any new development, either inside or on a roof.

While, quite frankly, tennis courts have no business being downtown. Typically squash or racketball courts make far more sense.

Building gym and leaisre facilities into new development is routine. No need to keep a facility so wasteful of space.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 18, 2011 @ 10:14 am

Brad Paul is right of course, yet any intelligent comment opposing this project is predictably attacked by paid spinners (anonymous or aliased). Developer lobbyists use these public comment areas to manipulate public opinion--which is no secret since they sometimes comply with our toothless ethics reporting requirements. Salaried trollers comments usually have the most aggressive and dismissive tone; don't expect any accuracy.

Posted by Bobby on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 9:37 am

And my question is why a developer would even bother to pay commenters to post here. Does it actually have any influence? I wouldn't think so.

And someone of Brad Paul's stature shouldn't even be lowering himself to responding to these clowns in the comments here. As if his years of knowledge and experience means anything to them.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 9:53 am

either get accused of being a troll or of being a "paid poster". It's quite ridiculous that some here cannot believe that another POV is possible or credible.

I don't know who Brad Paul is, or who is claiming to be him here. But I don't see anything in his posts to indicate more insight than others. In the end, we all have just one vote. And I think he's wrong here.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 10:44 am

Brad Paul is doing honest public service while anonymous "guest" posters are not. Some points-of-view intend to be seriously persuasive while others are anonymous personal attacks from paid spinners. We can all spot the difference between speedy anonymous or aliased posts (and their automatic "support" for development) versus thoughtful comments with genuine supportive evidence from independent public observers.

This project is a "rogue development" opposed by everybody who values San Francisco's most signature view from the Ferry Building to Coit Tower. It isn't actual housing policy, zoning policy, or business policy, it's just one group's scam and a large, openly-reported payroll. Post those "p.o.v.s" all you want, try to justify the pay some more.

Posted by Bobby on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 11:42 am

I don't know who this Brad dude is but it's clear that he is just a kneejerk NIMBY'ist like most here. Obviously new investment and more housing is beneficial to the city, along with all the tax revenues.

But he opposes it because he opposes everything. I'd guess he already has his condo and doesn't want to see it's value decline. That's usually the case for most "land use activists".

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 11:57 am

The Dude Brad abides, entertaining nightly in a waterfront penthouse condo where former renters, nimby lackies, and view-loving treehuggers--grateful for their market-appropriate carcinogenic tenements--serve at our pleasure.

Posted by Bobby on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 12:55 pm

I'm sure he's kind to animals, or some such.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 1:12 pm

Anonymous, I don't think anyone who knows me would ever call me a NIMBY. I've been an advocate for affordable housing and affordable by design market rate housing for almost 40 years. Among other things, I served as Deputy Mayor for Housing under Mayor Agnos coordinating the city’s housing programs and policies.

In that capacity I worked with the Mayor, the Mayor’s Office of Housing, Planning, Redevelopment and both non-profit and for profit developers to increase affordable housing production, leveraging $23 million in local funds with $95 million in state and federal resources. Working with the Mayor, Chief Administrative Officer and Planning Director, I also helped negotiate agreements on both the Yerba Buena Gardens and Mission Bay redevelopment plans.

As a Senior Program Officer at the Evelyn & Walter Haas, Jr. Fund (2000-2008), I helped fund affordable housing initiatives in San Francisco and Oakland that leveraged hundreds of millions of dollars in public and private funds to build thousands of units of housing affordable to low-income and working poor families, seniors and youth.

That's a bit of my background. What about you? What's your background and expertise?

Posted by Brad Paul on Dec. 18, 2011 @ 8:34 am

The clear implication there is that you always oppose market-rate development. Is that true? Or can you point us to work you've done increasing the supply of market-rate housing to ease the strain on the existing housing stocks, whose prices would otherwise have increased?

What impresses me is someone who supports all kinds of development, and not just the type that is for the poor. Can you prove me wrong? If not then you are a NIMBY - you just make exceptions for BMR - the onyl type of housing that costs the taxpayer.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 18, 2011 @ 8:39 am

While I've enjoyed our conversation, GUEST and ANONYMOUS, I have to get on with my day. Good luck.

Posted by Brad Paul on Dec. 18, 2011 @ 8:58 am

While your other references were even more extreme. Let's face it, Brad, you're a NIMBY/BMR ideolog with little or no sympathy or support for private-sector projects.

As such, all your "facts" amount to little more than cherry-picking and bias confirmation. You don't like this project because it's predominantly private-sector.

Sadly for you, SF has moved on since you had any power, influence or relevance. Agnos was pre dot.com and the City has moved on since those values held sway. That's why we've seen so much modern high-value development which has brought tens of millions of new revenues to the city.

What you and your type never understand is that even luxury new housing helps reduce demand, lowering housing prices for everyone. You don't understand markets and fear them. So you hate them. The city has moved on - so should you.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 18, 2011 @ 10:10 am

@ Brad, I agree that approval of the 8 Washington project is exactly the kind of policy that is making matters worse in San Francisco. But ultimately, the solution to the lack of options for the middle class does not rest on this ONE project. The fact is that San Francisco does not have enough affordable housing, for either the poor or the middle class. I think that we get stuck by thinking that this is a problem that can only be solved by development of new housing (guest comment, where can you build 40k units of new housing). New development is only part of the solution - but it has its limits; space is one of them. Many people do not want to live where new development is occurring - many people want to live in the neighborhoods, in places that are close to parks, schools, etc. For very poor people, more subsidies are needed to afford basic rent- and we do not have nearly enough. For middle class people the City has very little; but I would argue that what is needed is not nearly as daunting as for the very poor . The BMR program is fantastic for those lucky enough to win the lottery - but it has its limits - it is new construction mostly confined to downtown and SOMA, where new construction is happening. The Downpayment Assistance Loan program is also fantastic, but it has its limits as well - in that it is not available to anyone who earns more that 120% of the Area Median Income. Two teachers married or partnered to one another working on step one of the salary to SF Unified School District teachers are above this limit. So in that way, the income limit works against households with more than one income earner (families). To afford the average price for a single family home in San Francisco today, a household needs to earn 168% of the Area Median Incom AND have a 20% down payment. That is why we have that U. I would argue that the solution is NOT to build more luxury condos that San Franciscans cannot afford, or to cannibalize our rental housing stock by allowing TIC conversions, which would just shift the burden to less well off renters. We need better financing options for people in the middle class to purchase new and existing homes. In many neighborhoods, there are currently a surplus homes that are bank owed that are being bought up all cash by out of town investors, speculating on our market- it's always been a sure bet. The City could partner with a financial institution or social equity investor to make loans available to middle class families to purchase what is available. The City actually makes money on the existing downpayment assistance program - the initial 15 million invested in 1996 has yielded over $38 million in new loans. There are a lot of bright minds in this City - we really ought be able to work effectively on this problem.

Posted by Myrna on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 11:04 am

First, learn how to use paragraphs. Dense monolithic text is hard to read and understand.

Second, the lack of BMR housing is simply explained. The cheapest way to build high density housing is to build high. And in SF, thatr arely happens for residential unless the project is economically feasible, which means it has to be market rate.

So the lack of affordable housing isn't a vast right wing conspoiracy. It's merely the inevitable result of a desirable area and zoning restrictions. It's NIMBY'ism - those who own a home here (or who enjoy a controlled rent) have a vested interest in not seeing much new competition or supply, as that will devalue their asset or cheap rent.

If I was made dictator of SF, I could solve the hosuing problem overnight. I'd allow as much market-rate high-rises as the demand can make viable, and then build high-rise BMR untis with all those fees, taxes and set-asides.

In fact, it wouldn't need to be set up as BMR at all. Build enough and the price will go down anyway.

But the irony is that it is those on the left who oppose such construction.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 11:25 am

This is the age old debate. Don't act like the answer is easy. If it was that easy it would have been solved by now.

My side of the aisle argues that the price wouldn't go down because there is no way that the supply could get anywhere close to demand in SF where there is so little space for housing. I don't care how dense, how high you build these market rate units. It is simply a fact that here in SF we don't have the space to meet up with the demand and the price would not go down.

As a conservative you may disagree with this, but don't act like you have all the answers that nobody has thought of before.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 11:38 am

figures showing what that "unsatified demand" is. It's clearly not infinite. so what's the number? Somebody said 40,000 earlier. I've no idea if that's right but given that you can build a highrise tower with 1,000 units in it, then 40 such towers laid out along say the third street transit corridor and the adjoing waterfront would achieve balance between supply and demand.

In other words, you build for the wealthy where the price they will pay justifies it. And you build mass housing where elsewhere which, in SF, means the under-utilized SE area.

Of course, it will never happen, because of the vested interest I cited before. But there's no real reason why not.

The other thing I'd do is phase out rent control by dropping all units that become vacant from rent control. This would encourage the construction of new rental housing at infull and brown field sites.

I have other ideas for solving the problem but that will do for now. What the solution is not is the current situation, where the NIMBY's try and stop every new project on principle. We can't borrow, tax and regulate our way out of this problem. but we could build our way out of it.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 11:52 am

Supply-demand market worshippers, learn the history of the tenement housing horrors; "brownfield" housing supporters, learn to respect the U.S. Constitution; fallacious nimby accusers of anyone opposing this developer, reveal whose payroll you are on (or at least amuse us by lying about it).

Posted by Bobby on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 12:36 pm

the world's leading nation for market economics and faith in the supply/demand curve being the best driver of econimic decisions. You may not like that, but if so that simply implies you're living in the wrong place, and that maybe Cuba or North Korea would suit you better.

With that out of the way, nobody pays me and nobody would pay anyone to post on a site with such a small and un-influential scope as here. I'm simply an ordinary Joe who sees that the Emporer is wearing no clothes.

NIMBY is a good term to desribe Tim, Brad, Sue Hestor, Calvin Welch and all the other santimonious obstructionists who love nothing more than to suppress all new build, and condemn the city to be in some hopeless timewarp. But we're not a theme park like Williamsburg. We're a living, breathing and fairly affluent city.

So do we welcome the rich, like every other place, because we recongize that their money helps us fund the city's services? Or do we allow the politics of class envy and warfare to fight the construction of 34BMR units at no public cost?

It's beyond petty and vindictive to oppose this. What do you care if a few rich folks live here? Why does that offend you, other than envy of course?

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 12:54 pm

"Anonymous," I have devoted my entire life to such petty, vindictive, envy-driven, timewarped, sanctimonious, unpatriotic public interest protections, as did my similarly-minded father (a veteran of the Battle of the Bulge). Brad Paul has, too. My circumstances would likely surprise you, not that you really care.

If this site strikes you as so irrelevant to public opinion, why bother making pro-developer "ad hominem" slams on every opponent? If you're not paid, why be anonymous and obsessively post?

Instead, take full credit for these posts' amusingly creative spellings and neo-McCarthyist rants, whatever the motivation. Come work for me instead of supporting old Scrooge. Your Xmas bonus for attacking the do-gooders can be in accordance with the market principles you hold so dear.

Posted by Bobby on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 3:03 pm

here is why you so fear that a few homes get built for a few people who are more successful than you? Why does that irk you truly? Can you place your hand on your heart and credibly claim it is anything more than petty class envy on your part?

Every other city that is attractive enough to attract the wealthy courts them because they are so profitable to house. So why would SF be the only place to repel them? Because we prefer losers here? Because we'd rather have a smaller tax base so we can lay off more public sector workers? So we can feel better by not having to ever see someone who has money?

Make a real argument. Airy-fairy cliches don't consitute a coherent or convincing argument.

And who the hell is "Brad" anyway. Should I know or care?

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 3:18 pm

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes. You may have the last word, since you're almost off the clock...my loser heart is that big. Brad's is likewise. It's so easy to google the well-known Brad Paul, but today's agenda clearly doesn't include that. Marke, ask for hazard pay for putting up with these shills year after year.

Posted by Bobby on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 4:58 pm

Small mercies, but at least something.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 18, 2011 @ 8:40 am

Note the speedy anonymous or aliased posts with knee-jerk support for this highrise. HMS, PWP, et al... Scrooge doesn't pay enough for Tiny Tim's survival!

Posted by Bobby on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 11:48 am

High rise? For what - a mole? The tallest is 12 stories!

Posted by Guest on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 4:49 pm