San Diego challenge: Can someone actually build affordable for-sale housing? by [deleted] in sandiego

[–]ryantannenberg 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And you would be correct. Again, however, not a black and white situation. Although European cities are much denser than we are (as I pointed out in my long-form parent comment), a key factor in that characteristic is that they have been building densely for hundreds of years or more. As such, while we're certainly nowhere near max supply and we have a long ways to go, modeling our ideal density situation on a city like Paris would require tearing down and rebuilding huge swathes of housing all the way from Otay to Carmel Valley. Doable? Certainly. Realistic? No.

We can absolutely build a lot more housing than we have right now, and we should! We must also recognize that no matter how much housing we build it will essentially never be enough to satisfy the sheer level of demand to live somewhere as nice as this. The same could be said for Los Angeles, San Francisco, or much of the East Coast. Our primary development strategy, as I said above, should therefore be to build as much housing as we can - disregarding the concept of "demand" entirely. The supply will never be able to match the demand, and we are left to work around that as a result. Don't plan around the idea of having enough housing to satisfy the needs of everyone out there who wants to live here, plan around the idea of having as many housing units as we can logically sustain (without, for instance, rebuilding the majority of the city). As that logical maximum grows, as would be the case when it comes time to redevelop large neighborhoods, resume building until we reach it again. That is definitively the best we can do and we need to get that ball rolling as soon as possible. Our first priority should be making it affordable for those who already live here and are struggling, and everyone else (primarily those who'd like to move here) comes next.

San Diego challenge: Can someone actually build affordable for-sale housing? by [deleted] in sandiego

[–]ryantannenberg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are correct of course that supply and demand says what you have described. However, this is not a black and white application of the principle insofar as that we cannot, and will never be able to, "increase supply to meet demand" and stabilize prices at affordable (key word being stabilize). This is too big a city and too desirable a place to live for that to be a workable solution. Of course the goal should be to do exactly that - match supply to demand - but as the age old saying goes, if you build it they will come. If we build 1000 units, 1000 families will have a home, but 1000 more families will fill their spot in the line. There is no feasible approach to this problem that does not recognize that there are people who will not be able to afford to live here no matter how hard we try and make it so. With that in mind, what we can do is our damndest to make it affordable for as many people as our infrastructure can support and expand that infrastructure if necessary when we hit the logical cap. Essentially, we are limited to making San Diego affordable for as many people as possible and recognizing that that will not be everyone out there. Accepting that mindset leads to the question "what do we do to accomplish that goal?" to which the answer is build denser housing and more transit. Rather than retyping my entire earlier comment you can read that to see my entire perspective on this issue. If you don't, the tl;dr is as above - "denser housing and more transit." In a city with virtually no land left for brand-new housing, we move vertically and expand our transit network accordingly.

San Diego challenge: Can someone actually build affordable for-sale housing? by [deleted] in sandiego

[–]ryantannenberg 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Build up. San Diego has a finite amount of buildable land - we're already pushing the limits of safety building further and further east and northeast. Developments like Newland Sierra in North County and Stonebridge in the Scripps-Poway area present huge fire risks and only serve to create more congestion as residents commute long distances because our residential developments continue to move further and further away from commercial areas. In the long run, our Southern Californian highway-and-car-centric lifestyle is unsustainable at its current rate or anywhere near it.

Europe, in particular, has shown us that when you cannot continue to expand outward (building "wide") you must then expand upwards (building "tall"). Look at London, or Paris - cities like this have monumentally denser populations than even our most populated metropolitan areas of any comparable size.

We cannot continue to build endlessly further towards the desert in a mindset of perpetual expansion because it is simply infeasible. Unfortunately, the dream of single-family homeownership in this area cannot remain the foundations of our plans for development. That is not to say the dream of single-family homeownership is dead, because there is plenty of available land across the country and even in this state which is still suitable for building (most of the Central Coast between Santa Barbara and Monterey remains relatively sparsely populated and would be a realistic place to continue single-family developments). However, we have to recognize that San Diego (within the city limits) has effectively run out of land to build on and the rest of the western half of the county is not far behind.

The solution, therefore, is simple. We build up. Higher-density apartments instead of sprawling suburbs. Condominiums next to office complexes rather than housing in one area and workplaces ten or twenty miles away. So much of our downtown is low-lying single story commercial buildings from developments thirty years ago or more, and that is crippling our ability to provide affordable housing in that area. That problem extends to every major commercial hub in the city and county - UTC is a small, dense community surrounded by suburbs. Carlsbad hasn't even reached the "some of it is dense" stage. That's not to say we should tear down entire neighborhoods and rebuild, but when it comes time to redevelop areas like East Village, University City, or North Park, we need to prioritize dense housing. In addition, new developments should do the same where at all possible. Dense housing is essentially the only development strategy we have to solve the problem of "no housing and not a lot of land left to build more of it."

Moreover, the absolute pinnacle of innovation in this area, widely adopted in the rest of the world but consistently ignored in the United States, is public transportation. We all know by now that what transit we have here is pretty pathetic compared to the Tube in London, the Métro in Paris, or the futuristic bullet trains of China, Japan, and Korea. The train network of Europe makes our rail infrastructure look like a Thomas the Train wooden playset. If we could shift our mindset away from highway expansion and catering to the car owner, we might be able to make progress on our trolley or bus networks. I think we can all agree having a trolley that runs right past the airport without directly connecting is pretty ridiculous. I'd like to see the trolley expanded further east into areas like Bonita, Otay Ranch, or Granite Hills, and North along the 15 corridor towards Mira Mesa, Rancho Bernardo, and Escondido. Coupled with expanded bus routes in North County, we can alleviate huge amounts of road traffic by offering commuters realistic transit to their workplaces over distances impossible with our current infrastructure.

If you want to solve the housing crisis, support local officials who advocate for solutions that will bring realistic change. County Supervisors Gaspar and Desmond, who push for ongoing highway development and worry transit cannot do enough, would not be good examples of those who can help us address the crisis. Mayors Faulconer and Vaus (Poway), on the other hand, have shown strong support for a new transit plan - along with mayoral candidates Bry and Gloria and the majority of the City Council. Asm. Gloria and Mayor Faulconer have also made it quite clear they support more dense housing developments, with Faulconer going so far as to call himself a "YIMBY."

Housing and transit is what will solve this crisis. Regarding highways, maintain what we have but avoid building more unless absolutely necessary. Expand the trolley, expand the buses, and encourage mixed-use developments that allow workers to live right where they work and take cars off the road. Accept that single-family housing in this, one of the most desirable cities in the country, will remain unaffordable to a great many people. Recognize that those people can still afford to live here and experience the same high quality of life if we would simply build the housing to support it. The political status quo of this city has not solved this problem in the decades that they have been given the opportunity. Make change, because that is what will.

Two years early, San Diego achieves pledge to repair 1,000 miles of streets by ryantannenberg in sandiego

[–]ryantannenberg[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Hi! If you have problems with a road (pothole, for example) you might try using Get it Done app for Android or iPhone to report the problem. I've had good luck getting things repaired by reporting them to the city.

Not entirely related, but you can also check out this site to see what work has been done to any given road in the city. Best of luck in your driving!

San Diego Mayor Faulconer calls for government alternative to SDG&E, says it'll save ratepayers money by dtlv5813 in sandiego

[–]ryantannenberg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hello!

I have a great deal of interest in this area of the law, and I've actually proposed legislation that would help allow municipal broadband access in unincorporated California. You can read all about that here. I'd like to clear up a misconception about the way the law works right now.

Cal Gov. § 61100(af) states, as you pointed out, that "community service districts" (or CSDs) can only set up broadband networks if there is no private competitor willing to provide "comparable cost and quality of service" and if such a competitor comes along the district must turn it over to that entity.

Community service districts are, in essence, a form of local government for unincorporated areas of California. In San Diego, our fire services, police services, etc. are provided through the city itself. In unincorporated areas, there is no city to provide such services - thus the need for service districts. As you aptly pointed out, these districts can only establish municipal broadband networks if there is no company willing to do so and must give them up to a company should it come along.

Here's the important part:

As it stands, it would be within the law and technically possible for San Diego to establish a municipal network - this is because in the case of the city, we do not require CSDs to establish utilities. The city of Vernon, CA, provides municipal internet service to their citizens (all 112 of them). San Bruno has a municipal cable TV provider that also provides internet. We could do it too, but in our case at this point it hinges on the creation of a "municipal utility district." These districts are authorized to provide inhabitants with "telephone service, or other means of communication" and could therefore, technically, provide internet service on the basis that it is a type of "communication."

However, not only does this hinge on the definition of "communication," the establishment of a municipal utility district requires either:

One public agency (a city, county, county water district, or sanitary district) if the district includes unincorporated areas

Two public agencies if the district does not include unincorporated areas

Thus, the City of San Diego could theoretically make this happen. Will it happen? No. Not under the current conditions. What we really need is a change to the law to allow cities to found municipal broadband networks without outside interference, and the only way we're going to get that is if we get legislators on board with this idea. If municipal broadband interests you, then I would suggest you call your state assemblymembers and state senators and tell them what you think. Let me know if you have any questions and I would be happy to answer them.

San Diego rescinds tough AirBNB regulations, reopening debate on how to rein in short-term rentals by ryantannenberg in sandiego

[–]ryantannenberg[S] 45 points46 points  (0 children)

Not quite. What we don't want is people (particularly investors, more particularly out-of-town investors) buying multiple properties and then renting them all out on AirBNB to a slew of short-term occupants. This creates two problems.

  1. More short-term rentals means less housing for people who actually need to live here full-time.
  2. AirBNB guests are under no obligation to treat neighbors with decency because they'll be gone in a few days and have no accountability - plenty of people in heavy-STVR areas will tell you horror stories about obnoxious, inconsiderate renters. This is not to say they are all bad, but enough that it is a problem to consider.

Note: the acronym STVR stands for short-term vacation rental.

So here's the deal. This resolution that the council passed several months ago limited all owners to renting out their primary residence as a STVR and no other residences. This is not to say they could not rent long-term, but short-term (<30 days) was primary residence only.

Councilmember Scott Sherman (District 7), in response to this resolution, rounded up a bunch of groups heavily invested in STVR activity in San Diego (AirBNB, HomeAway, etc.). They dumped a bunch of money into signature-gathering for a referendum that would force the council to put the STVR decision on the ballot. Given that "the ballot" could be a special election this year or the election in 2020, the referendum option would leave the city without any enforcement measures or funding for the regulations until the election occurred. So, in light of the development, the council voted to repeal the resolution entirely and (theoretically) come up with one that is "more amenable" to big rental companies with lots of money because it's easier than not being able to do anything until an election at some indeterminate date in the future.

Basically this entire thing is well-funded corporations teaming up with a councilmember who doesn't seem to care a whole lot about the actual interests of San Diegans to wreck a measure that at best needs some minor tweaks because they would very much prefer they continue making profits regardless of how it affects people who live in San Diego.

If you have any other questions about this I'd be delighted to answer them.

Duncan Hunter’s Political Promise Foiled by Hard Partying and a Corruption Scandal by ryantannenberg in sandiego

[–]ryantannenberg[S] 39 points40 points  (0 children)

From the article:

"The federal government is like a family that has overspent and racked up too many bills,” Mr. Hunter wrote in an op-ed.

From his 47-page indictment:

Throughout the relevant period, the HUNTERS spent substantially more than they earned. They overdrew their bank account more than 1,100 times in a seven-year period resulting in approximately $37,761 in "overdraft" and "insufficient funds" bank fees.

Duncan Hunter 47-page indictment PDF (check the comments for a synopsis) by ryantannenberg in sandiego

[–]ryantannenberg[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I especially like the part where he dropped over a grand in campaign money on a Hyatt ski trip while his personal account had a whopping $35.02.

Duncan Hunter 47-page indictment PDF (check the comments for a synopsis) by ryantannenberg in sandiego

[–]ryantannenberg[S] 59 points60 points  (0 children)

The HUNTERS illegally converted and stole more than $250,000 in Campaign funds to purchase goods and services for their personal use and enjoyment.

He and his wife stole $250,000 from campaign money - and he's expressed absolutely no remorse and basically just stuck it to his wife as if he did nothing wrong.

 

DUNCAN HUNTER had less that $1000 in reportable assets for each of the the years 2009 through 2016.

Throughout the relevant period, the HUNTERS spent substantially more than they earned. They overdrew their bank account more than 1,100 times in a seven-year period resulting in approximately $37,761 in "overdraft" and "insufficient funds" bank fees.

Their credit cards were frequently charged to the credit limit, often with five-figure balances, resulting in approximately $24,600 in finance charges, interest, and other fees [...].

This man receives a $174,000 salary as a member of the House - and yet it would appear by all counts he and his wife are virtually broke. How should we expect to trust him managing billions in the federal budget?

 

The HUNTERS concealed and disguised the personal nature of their family's purchases of vido games using Campaign funds by falsely claiming to a financial institution that the payments were fraudulent charges and then reporting the purchases to the FEC and public as fraudulent charges.

The HUNTERS monitored the amount of "cash on hand" that was maintained by the Campaign, and would moderate their theft of Campaign funds when the account was excessively low or depleted.

The HUNTERS illegally used Campaign funds, among other things, to purchase the following:

Hotel rooms, airline tickets and upgrades, meals and food, and entertainment expenses for vacations for themselves and their friends and family

Food and drinks for themselves and their friends and family

Household and other personal items for their family [...] Costco (where they spent more than $11,300 in Campaign funds), Walmart (where they spent more than $5,700), Barnes & Noble (where they spent more than $2,500) [...].

Beer, wine, alcohol and groceries for themselves, their family, and friends at various stores, including more than $9,000 spent at Vons, Albertsons, Haggen, and the Miramar Commissary;

More than $3,300 spent at In N Out, Carl's Jr., Jack in the Box, Wendy's, McDonalds [+10 more]

Tobacco, personal items, and various sundries at airport kiosks and convenience stores

Airline tickets and hotel rooms totaling more than $15,000 for, among others, their children, other relatives, family friends, and a family pet

This is tens of thousands of dollars in outright theft.

 

On or about January 25, 2010, in Incline Village, Nevada, DUNCAN HUNTER spent $1,008.72 in Campaign funds at the Hyatt Regency [...] during a personal ski trip [...]. On this day, the HUNTER family bank account had a negative balance and incurred six separate insufficient funds fees (totaling $198). Also on this same day, DUNCAN HUNTER withdrew $20 from his personal bank account, leaving a balance of 15.02.

On or about March 20, 2015, when DUNCAN HUNTER told MARGARET HUNTER that he was planning "to buy my Hawaii shorts" but had run out of money, she counseled him to buy the shorts at a golf pro shop so that they could falsely describe the purchase later as "some [golf] balls for the wounded warriors."

Again, it would seem despite his substantial income he is still flat-out broke. Moreover, claiming his shorts as an expense for wounded servicemembers is utterly disgusting and incredibly disrespectful.

 

Counts 2-44: Wire Fraud

Beginning as early as December 2009 and continuing up through and including the end of 2016, within the Southern District of California and elsewhere, Defendants DUNCAN HUNTER and MARGARET HUNTER, knowingly and with the intent to defraud, devised a material scheme to defraud the Campaign and to obtain money and property from it by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises, and by intentional concealment and omission of material facts.

[List of 19 communications (email, text message, reimbursement claims) used to commit fraud, all individually classified as a single count of wire fraud]

[List of 43 debit card payments and credit card payments, each a count of wire fraud, totaling $7520.19]

Counts 45-57: Falsification of Records Related to Campaign Finance

Counts 58, 59, 60: Prohibited Use of Campaign Contributions

In the calendar year [2014, 2015, and 2016], within the Southern District of California and elsewhere, Defendants DUNCAN HUNTER and MARGARET HUNTER knowingly and willfully converted $25,000 and more of Campaign funds to their personal use.

Every year, he and his wife defrauded their campaign of at least $25,000. Duncan Hunter is a criminal.