315
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 33 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Local tech billionares are recently dumping more money into the city politics to shift it ot the right. The CEO of Y combinator, a hugely influential silicon valley incubator is notoriously antagonist and recently drunkenly said the local city council should "die slow."

[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

Awwww I like hacker news why does ycombinator have to be evil

[-] evergreen@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Measures supporting low income housing, more ethics laws for city officials, turning office space into residential space, and $6B for mental health care also passed in the election. Those definitely don't seem like things that the right would support.

https://sfelections.org/results/20240305w/index.html

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Hes right of San Fransisco progressive politics. Basically bog standard tech bro liberals, i.e "Yimby but not actually where I live, also don't tax me in any real way and where are all my cops at?"

The 7 city council members he told to die were all progressives. He opposes actual progressive reforms, and is willing to spend his billions and his massive influence to fight them.

[-] evergreen@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Yeah he definitely seems like a bit of a loose cannon that only has a platform due to his wealth. Not that it makes it excusable, but he did issue an apology for what thats worth. I definitely don't think that the majority of voters agree with the remarks he made to the city council members.

However, I do think that due to the prominent quality of life crimes, homelessness and drug use in recent years, a lot of the voters in San Francisco have become disenfranchised with Progressive politics, viewing them as failed experiments.

[-] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 4 points 6 months ago

The rest of the propositions you mentioned were pretty liberal but the office space one was lead by the right. It allowed for fast tracking transforming office space from commercial to residential, which sounds good on paper, until you realize that fast track already existed for affordable housing. All the proposition did was fast track developers plans to turn the space into non-affordable housing, which San Francisco already has plenty of, and removes the incentives to build affordable housing out of that space.

You could argue that reducing the red tape for market rate housing would help increase the supply and therefore reduce the cost for everyone, but that's a standard right wing pro-developer argument. The left would say that SF has been building tons of market rate housing for years with no decrease in rent and that the only way to make housing affordable is to build affordable housing. You can either build it through state funding and building, like the affordable housing proposition A does, or by incentiving developers to build it, because the base incentive of the market is to build the most expensive housing possible to maximize profits.

[-] evergreen@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

The Inclusionary Housing Program requires developers to set aside a percentage of the housing as affordable.

Even if it is not classified as affordable housing, it is still more housing which the city needs regardless.

Also, another measure that passed in the previous vote was for a tax on vacant units it multi-unit buildings. If they don't at least compete with market rate, they will suffer.

this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2024
315 points (100.0% liked)

News

22890 readers
3257 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS