Check out the great banner art at Friday’s City Hall protest

[via Mike Koozmin]

13 Responses to “Check out the great banner art at Friday’s City Hall protest”

  1. Andy says:

    Yes. Fantastic banners. It was amazing and beautiful all round.

    Estimates range from 800 to 1,000 for the turnout. No one in City Hall could recall ever seeing anything like it. Not since the HUAC protest in 1960?

    The Mission made it’s point loud and clear. Stop the evictions, No Monsters in the Mission (no more luxury developments), truly affordable housing now, and Mayor Lee must declare a state of emergency.

    Anyways, here come the haters in 3, 2, 1 . . .

    • Truth says:

      These people’s hearts are in the right place, if only they had gotten their degrees in economics instead of comparative lit. If you want less eviction you should be in favor of cheaper rents, if you want cheaper rents you should not be against new housing. When you increase the supply, the demand goes down, plain and simple. All the arguments that say that new market-rate housing doesn’t lower rents or somehow even raises rents are unfounded and fallacious. In the real world it’s been proving over and over that adding market-rate housing drops rents for everyone, for example in the drop in Chicago rental prices after their recent housing development boom.

      • Brillo says:

        Supply and demand isn’t that simple. The question is, what kind of supply? Millionaires next door incentivize speculative evictions by your own landlord. When a neighborhood “improves” for some, it excludes others… These protesters are acting in their economic self-interest.

        • Truth says:

          That’s a dangerous and fallacious argument. It’s been shown time and time again that new market-rate housing doesn’t cause evictions or displacement, and it drops the average cost of rent. The number of people trying to live in San Francisco are not in unlimited supply. They are absolutely acting against their own interests and being misled by this kind of speculative nonsense.

          Well, really they are acting against the interests of the working class people who will be hurt harder by this and don’t have the option of moving back home or skipping off to grad school when the restricted housing supply successfully turns San Francisco into a gated community.

  2. MrEricSir says:

    We get it, landlords — you don’t want any competition. You can STFU and GTFO now please.

    • Mark says:

      I dont know, I see your point and all, Im undecided on this issue.

      We need housing, and stopping production is going to lead to further increases in prices, and further incentives for landlords to either buyout current tenants, or come up with methods of kicking them out. That’s not really debatable to me.

      However, building a glut of luxury housing is going to create strong incentives for all businesses in the Mission to become upscale cocktail bars, hilariously priced restaurants and ‘markets.’ Additionally, we need housing on probably an unobtainable scale, so building more and more housing in the Mission will likely not soak up demand. It will however, make the Mission have a substantially larger tech population, and will also likely just lead to even more people desiring to live there, which will lead to buyouts of tenants and evictions.

      So which is better? Both terrible, what we need is for the approval of 50 of these monsters. Todays luxury housing is tomorrows avant-garde artist housing during a substantial downturn. On balance, I’d say build it, I mean fuck it I’m leaving this city anyway.

      • R. says:

        Exactly. We’d need 50 more of them to even make a dent. Somehow the dopey left has formed an alliance with property owners to ensure that a sufficient housing supply will never get built.

        Next stop: $4000/month median rent for a one bedroom in the Mission.

      • MrEricSir says:

        Just because housing is expensive now doesn’t mean it’s going to be forever. Today’s “luxury” development is tomorrow’s average apartment. Regardless, the people living in those new developments aren’t competing for your apartment, which takes pressure off the supply.

        I’m not sure anyone’s saying we should only build in the Mission — the Bay Area has grown tremendously in my lifetime, but the housing certainly hasn’t kept up pace. NIMBYs created this mess, more NIMBYism isn’t going to solve it.

  3. Greg says:

    You can either be pro building or pro higher rental prices. You can’t be both.

  4. Gary says:

    I we continue to tear down and build nothing but apartments with retail on the ground floor, we will have plenty of coffee shops and bedrooms and nothing else, no cool small little businesses, you know the hole in the wall shop that makes the city a great place to live in & explore…..turned into another boutique cafe…..what fun is THAT?
    Where ya gonna get your shoes fixed? Or your dry cleaning done, or your wood moulding at? Or floor tiles? Or Tie dye? Or gasoline? They are tearing down all the gas stations to build apartments….how about tires or brake jobs? The city was built on the backs of small to medium businesses, and they are being forced out, making SF a not as liveable place as it was

  5. Greg says:

    There is not going to be any water for any of you assholes.

  6. chalkman says:

    we should be building 40 story studio apartments with shared kitchens on each floor that individual floor HOAs pay to clean and maintain for the techies to live in SOMA/Mission Bay/16th and Mission and leave the single family homes/6 unit buildings for families

  7. george says:

    Sadly, I don’t think there is a short term solution that will relieve the financial stress felt by renters in the mission, and SF overall. There are more people that want to live here than there are units, and I don’t think you can legislate a solution that will appease everyone.

    More importantly, cities and neighborhoods are always in flux. The same pattern happens everywhere:

    -Young and/or creative people move into a generally lower income and crime heavy area and slowly make it hip. Gritty, but hip.

    -Then it becomes bohemian.

    -Then the first followers come in and open businesses to serve their current clientele and visitors.

    -Younger white collar workers that can deal with a little grit but want some “authenticity” and bragging rights move in.

    -Then it snowballs into a yuppie community as the grittiness falls away and the businesses change and adapt to their new clientele.

    -Then it becomes what the Mission is today.

    First stages are currently happening in Bay View and West Oakland right now, and they’ll continue on the same trend as the Mission.

    Everything is a cycle, and this is no different. As much as it sucks for a lot of people in the Mission, the party is over, and the ship has sailed. The Mission of a decade past is long gone and it’s not coming back.