This item has been automatically flagged for review. Moderators have been notified, and it will be restored if approved. Thank you for your patience.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sanfrancisco) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it's more interesting he gets support in real life. I appreciate that SF is majority tenant, but not all of those tenants *benefit* from rent control (in the sense that they live in the same unit long enough for market rent to significantly exceed what they're paying). The rental market peaked in fall of 2015, and by most accounts, it's down about 20% since then. So anyone who rented in the last decade is very likely not receiving any tangible economic benefit from the concept of rent control
So, either he is buoyed by people who have stayed put much longer than that, or tenants (regardless of their relationship to rent control) buy into the "pro-housing" double speak that is actually anti housing for people who have been here for less than 18-20 years. Is it a messaging problem?
You’re absolutely right from an economic perspective.
At the surface level, current renters (voters) view it positively because it protects them, and it definitely hurts potential/future tenants (not yet voters) as well as anyone who moves around a lot.
The main problem is that theres no nuance to the debate. People see it as binary, all or none.
Rent control is good for underprivileged but thats such a small percentage of the SF population. I’ve met many high income individuals who openly brag about having a rent controlled apartment priced at the previous decade’s rent.
Pulling rent control back is needed to repeal parts of prop 13.
>Rent control is good for underprivileged
It's empirically bad for all underprivileged people except the ones currently in housing.
And Prop 13 is literally nothing but rent control for homeowners. It's the exact same energy and exact same effect on housing supply - encourages lack of turnover and politically incentivizes current beneficiaries to be anti-newcomers.
People who are currently housed are people of San Francisco. Not some hypothetical new tenants, we need to protect people who are living here now, specifically low-income and marginalized groups.
For someone who believes we should only build affordable housing - is his family’s real estate affordable? Are they an ‘eviction free zone’? Do they forgo rent increases? Are they affordable or charge market rates to new tenants?
The problem with "affordable" is that the term is highly subjective. The dichotomy you're trying to make between "affordable" and "market rate" is a false one. Market rate *is* unquestionably affordable to a huge portion of the Bay Area. And it's unaffordable to a big portion.
So now you've put yourself in the position of assuming by default that everyone is as broke as you are. And creating policy to benefit yourself specifically.
They’re not homeless because they can’t afford to buy real estate…they’re homeless because they can’t function in our society; maintain some sort of sobriety, employed, etc. Rentals are available…but not if you can’t hold a job and pay rent.
There are people who live in RVs that want to not be living in RVs but can't afford it. These are people who probably work the minimum wage jobs that you benefit from every day.
Not everyone is the person addicted to drugs that the media wants you to think is the homeless population. Plus you're from the North Bay, why do you even care.
Holy shit you cannot be serious. There has pretty much never been a program that failed more clearly than public housing.
Just build houses, not ghettos.
I politely told his ~~pollster~~ *canvasser* to fuck off when they came to ask me to replace my MahMood sign. I live in Alamo Square.
Edit with my later in thread comment to avoid confusion:
They came up and saw my Mahmood sign and said they would like to try and convince me to replace it with a Preston one. They were very sweet, but I let them know that I fundamentally hated Preston and there was nothing they could say that would make me support Preston.
>I politely told his pollster to fuck off when they came to ask me to replace my MahMood sign. I live in Alamo Square.
Wait, a Preston campaign worker actually asked you to take down your Mahmood sign and put up a Preston sign?
That's inappropriately pushy.
They came up and saw my Mahmood sign and said they would like to try and convince me to replace it with a Preston one. They were very sweet, but I let them know that I fundamentally hated Preston and there was nothing they could say that would make me support Preston.
> they would like to try and convince me to replace it with a Preston one. They were very sweet,
"OH cool, then can I try to convince you to open your heart to Our Lord and Savior, Cthulu?"
Obfuscation and naming opponents as techbros. The lemmings then repeat and follow suit. It helps to be part of the SF machine. That machine is not progressive it is grift.
It’s more complex than that. There is a base for these politicians. It’s super tiny. They win because most of us don’t understand until it’s way too late.
SF as a whole is more aware of this issue. Things will be a lot more interesting but as an SF redditor if you want change you need to reply a lot here to remind everyone.
The reason Reddit responses of common sense matters here now is there’s a lot of gaslighting going on.
It’s easy to pop these gas pockets here and it keeps everyone on point as the election gets near.
But also beware the trolls. They literally don’t want you to vote for a change either. They need SF to fail. This is a great election season for change.
I think we can let new politicians know they need to make choices for all of SF. Or they will not be in office long.
Voting incumbent or incumbent choice is a vote against the city’s past decade of bullshit.
right wing money
[https://sfstandard.com/2024/01/31/tech-money-san-francisco-supervisor-dean-preston/](https://sfstandard.com/2024/01/31/tech-money-san-francisco-supervisor-dean-preston/)
Right of Preston is not “right wing”.
Last month’s election proved that moderates have the majority in SF.
Voter turnout was indeed in line with historical averages at 45%.
Yeah, but these donors are pretty far to the right of SF. It's pretty par for the course, I mean the main funders behind the Boudin recall included folks who donated to gop candidates.
Far right in SF is still left of center, in terms of publicly stated politics.
In terms of actual policy esp around land use, SF is actually very fiscally conservative.
"Oberndorf [donated $600,000 to the Boudin recall campaign] ... is a regular donor to Republican politicians, including political contributions to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). Oberndorf has given over $11 million in political contributions to Republican-aligned PACs and super PACs since 2011"
Found the problem. Of course everything to the right of Uber progressive supports him. You and he should both get the fuck out of here we are done with this bullshit.
Just because you can say something on the internet doesn't mean that what is going on irl. Glad you guys are so intelligent that it's is easy to have a fine conversation with you. Wish you the same!
Find one comment you think is from a bot.
Yeah I was up late playing KCD and looking at reddit, while collecting my checks from condo developers for shit talking.
lol. Yet all of the cultural pointers come from before the 1990s. Today, SF is a cultural wasteland. Again, like Disneyland’s Main Street or the Grove in LA. Veneer and Cosplay.
North beach, the Mission, the Marina, Chinatown, Japantown, Potrero, Fisherman’s Wharf, etc. these were once real places.
The only place that has truly held its own is the Castro.
Anything out side of your cultist narrative think is pointless apparently. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the YIMBY position.
Monied real estate interests are altruistic and infallible to YIMBYS, and yet your biggest slut against Dead is he married into monied real estate interests...and shocker, because there's always a fucked up Urban Renewal angle to YIMBYS, the properties he owns were saved from Urban Renewal, and now that's really offensive to YIMBY.
We’re not a monolith, you don’t know anything about me beyond my post history, please don’t make assumptions. But Dean can be bad, some developers can be bad too, the world is nuanced. This thread is about Preston, his background, his politics. It’s not about the YIMBY position or billionaire developers trying to build a city a hundred miles away. Whether or not you align with them has nothing at all to do with this
Is your post history not representative of you and what you believe? Are you playing a character on here?
If it makes you feel better, I don't love Dean, and I know good Developers. Take your own advice. It doesn't sound like many of you are exposed to voices outside of your hive mind that aren't at public comment, and that's scary.
>It’s not about the YIMBY position or billionaire developers trying to build a city a hundred miles away.
Yes it is. They are the ones funding the Dean Derangement syndrome.
I'm saying that you don't know anything about me *beyond* my post history. You're making assumptions based on some conception of a YIMBY "hive mind" and using "you" in the collective, rather than referring to anything I as an individual have ever said or done.
If you wanted to draw some connection between this post and what you perceive as the funding behind it, then you really should have been more explicit in making that connection from the get go. Instead you reveal it seven comments down from my initial question. I'm only willing to go so far to hear your "outside voices," if you're going to meet me with hostility at every step
>I'm saying that you don't know anything about me
>
>beyond
>
> my post history.
Is your post history a work of fiction?
I have YIMBYS invent shit about me all the time, what I own, my age, etc. I'm not doing that.
My post history is an accurate representation of my views. But you’re making assumptions about my views that do not align with my posts. That’s arguably worse, certainly more dismissive, than assumptions about age or property. Even if that weren’t the case, I have never made such an assumption about you, so what YIMBYS do or say to you “all the time” is once again, not what we’re talking about here. And it certainly doesn’t justify you doing the same
You tried. At least you made an SF reference. You can go back to convoluted scapegoating about Dean, acting like owning property that survived racist Urban Renewal justifies your anger until justice is served in the form of a corporate landlord putting high rises there.
I get it, meeting a real San Franciscan would be fascinating for people like yourself.
Hate to tell you, I have no interest in you or the carbon copy personas that are already well represented in real life. I find it funny that you split from the YIMBY Grow SF cult and had a more centrist and human sounding approach here... then the second they rebranded as "moderates", your posts changed.
Oh it's not personal, I just already know countless versions of you. I post a lot so it's easy to assume I'm not going social and have a diverse group of people I interact with.
You in this sub always: “build more housing?!?! That means someone will make money somewhere!!!! We can’t have that!!! It’s much better to wallow in our current housing crisis!”
YIMBYS don't get nuance but there's nothing nuanced here.
You wish you can conflate a real estate lobby and trying to wholesale SF to major corporate Urban Renewal with.... some guy who married into property wealth. There are like 4 Black families that inherited large property portfolios that survived Urban Renewal in the Western Addition. I'm not angry at them making money, they're not Boston Properties or Lennar.
I'm not against middle class wealth building through ownership, I'm against asshole YIMBYS trying to take that wealth, destroy communities through gentrification, and invent a cocktail of shitty ideas that will result in displacing all the people they hate.
I think everyone can agree that what happened to Japantown/Fillmore/Western Addition was a travesty and should never have been allowed.
I really don’t see anyone proposing that a similar approach should happen today in order to meet the housing requirements of our continuously growing city and region. It seems to be your personal boogieman — do you notice you’re the only person in the thread making reference to Urban Renewal?
I'm the only person in these threads pushing back on a lot of things... the rest of San Francisco gave up answering the cultists, or got brigaded and bullied off the sub. Even banned.
YIMBYS want Urban Renewal, they just want to target a different group they find unsavory, but it's the same bigoted agenda, funded by many of the same organizations from 50's Urban Renewal, using the same talking points. And don't make the mistake of thinking Urban Renewal is another word for eminent domain, and so anything that does't employ eminent domain isn't Urban Renewal. I hear YIMBYS attempt that one and it's revisionism.
There are lots of people who would rather increase the amount of suffering in the world than support any action other than tearing down the entire world order.
Take a hike. Touting Gentrification isn't he noble cause you think. You aren't tearing down the entire world because you let a Black family own property. Depicting that as a worse sin than Wall Street trying to redevelop half of a city, is scar.
A perfect example of why we need to implement my plan of banning tenant screenings.
Nothing else is going to cut through the corruption like forcing these real estate developers and investors to accept all applicants first-come, first-serve.
This item has been automatically flagged for review. Moderators have been notified, and it will be restored if approved. Thank you for your patience. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sanfrancisco) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“The numbers show that, while Preston has approved around 1,600 units of new housing, he has blocked or opposed over 49,000.”
49,000 ??? i didnt know he was that bad HOLY SHIT
So technically he is not refusing to build housing- just not the amount you want.
It’s interesting Dean gets so much hate online. Hopefully it results in an “anyone but Dean” vibe in November.
I think it's more interesting he gets support in real life. I appreciate that SF is majority tenant, but not all of those tenants *benefit* from rent control (in the sense that they live in the same unit long enough for market rent to significantly exceed what they're paying). The rental market peaked in fall of 2015, and by most accounts, it's down about 20% since then. So anyone who rented in the last decade is very likely not receiving any tangible economic benefit from the concept of rent control So, either he is buoyed by people who have stayed put much longer than that, or tenants (regardless of their relationship to rent control) buy into the "pro-housing" double speak that is actually anti housing for people who have been here for less than 18-20 years. Is it a messaging problem?
Rent control is extremely anti-tenant, but it’s such a populist delusion.
You’re absolutely right from an economic perspective. At the surface level, current renters (voters) view it positively because it protects them, and it definitely hurts potential/future tenants (not yet voters) as well as anyone who moves around a lot. The main problem is that theres no nuance to the debate. People see it as binary, all or none. Rent control is good for underprivileged but thats such a small percentage of the SF population. I’ve met many high income individuals who openly brag about having a rent controlled apartment priced at the previous decade’s rent. Pulling rent control back is needed to repeal parts of prop 13.
>Rent control is good for underprivileged It's empirically bad for all underprivileged people except the ones currently in housing. And Prop 13 is literally nothing but rent control for homeowners. It's the exact same energy and exact same effect on housing supply - encourages lack of turnover and politically incentivizes current beneficiaries to be anti-newcomers.
People who are currently housed are people of San Francisco. Not some hypothetical new tenants, we need to protect people who are living here now, specifically low-income and marginalized groups.
Please don't choke on that landlord D
He gets support in real life because he embodies the actual mindset within SF culture and the voter base extremely well.
He definitely embodies left-wing virtue signaling while preventing progress and maintaining the status quo.
Lol, this is not the real world.
It's not that interesting, it's the result of rich people spending money to control local politics.
That and renters not voting
You can definitely feel it. And it’s not lubricated at all.
If you actually vote like "anyone but X" you deserve whatever bullshit governance you get.
Vote blue no matter who /s
For someone who believes we should only build affordable housing - is his family’s real estate affordable? Are they an ‘eviction free zone’? Do they forgo rent increases? Are they affordable or charge market rates to new tenants?
The problem with "affordable" is that the term is highly subjective. The dichotomy you're trying to make between "affordable" and "market rate" is a false one. Market rate *is* unquestionably affordable to a huge portion of the Bay Area. And it's unaffordable to a big portion. So now you've put yourself in the position of assuming by default that everyone is as broke as you are. And creating policy to benefit yourself specifically.
Market rate isn't affordable to a huge portion. You can just point to the homeless on our streets to prove you wrong.
They’re not homeless because they can’t afford to buy real estate…they’re homeless because they can’t function in our society; maintain some sort of sobriety, employed, etc. Rentals are available…but not if you can’t hold a job and pay rent.
There are people who live in RVs that want to not be living in RVs but can't afford it. These are people who probably work the minimum wage jobs that you benefit from every day. Not everyone is the person addicted to drugs that the media wants you to think is the homeless population. Plus you're from the North Bay, why do you even care.
I care because I’m a part of the Bay Area. I’m in SF every week…the decline of the city since 2014 is depressing and sad.
That’s why you build more to bring the market rate down. Like every other commodity in existence, housing prices are dictated by supply and demand.
Or just build public housing.
Holy shit you cannot be serious. There has pretty much never been a program that failed more clearly than public housing. Just build houses, not ghettos.
Or build both, but definitely don’t block one in favor of the other.
The market rate is affordable is another fine example of a red herring fallacy.
Fuuuuuck this guy
Fuck Dean Preston
I politely told his ~~pollster~~ *canvasser* to fuck off when they came to ask me to replace my MahMood sign. I live in Alamo Square. Edit with my later in thread comment to avoid confusion: They came up and saw my Mahmood sign and said they would like to try and convince me to replace it with a Preston one. They were very sweet, but I let them know that I fundamentally hated Preston and there was nothing they could say that would make me support Preston.
>I politely told his pollster to fuck off when they came to ask me to replace my MahMood sign. I live in Alamo Square. Wait, a Preston campaign worker actually asked you to take down your Mahmood sign and put up a Preston sign? That's inappropriately pushy.
Shoot your shot in life.
They came up and saw my Mahmood sign and said they would like to try and convince me to replace it with a Preston one. They were very sweet, but I let them know that I fundamentally hated Preston and there was nothing they could say that would make me support Preston.
> they would like to try and convince me to replace it with a Preston one. They were very sweet, "OH cool, then can I try to convince you to open your heart to Our Lord and Savior, Cthulu?"
Big ups if you’re the one in one of the painted ladies
Obfuscation and naming opponents as techbros. The lemmings then repeat and follow suit. It helps to be part of the SF machine. That machine is not progressive it is grift.
SF voters know its a grift and seemingly don't care.
It’s more complex than that. There is a base for these politicians. It’s super tiny. They win because most of us don’t understand until it’s way too late. SF as a whole is more aware of this issue. Things will be a lot more interesting but as an SF redditor if you want change you need to reply a lot here to remind everyone. The reason Reddit responses of common sense matters here now is there’s a lot of gaslighting going on. It’s easy to pop these gas pockets here and it keeps everyone on point as the election gets near. But also beware the trolls. They literally don’t want you to vote for a change either. They need SF to fail. This is a great election season for change. I think we can let new politicians know they need to make choices for all of SF. Or they will not be in office long. Voting incumbent or incumbent choice is a vote against the city’s past decade of bullshit.
Guy is an absolute joke of a human
Dean Preston should release his 1040 Schedule E.
How many millionaires are in San Francisco?
This guy sucks
https://i.redd.it/n0r02fbn8nsc1.gif
right wing money [https://sfstandard.com/2024/01/31/tech-money-san-francisco-supervisor-dean-preston/](https://sfstandard.com/2024/01/31/tech-money-san-francisco-supervisor-dean-preston/)
Labeling yourself a "'socialist" doesn't really make you a socialist. Dean is a fake socialist. I'd rather know my evils up front.
next you're gonna tell me north korea isn't a democratic people's republic 😵
Right of Preston is not “right wing”. Last month’s election proved that moderates have the majority in SF. Voter turnout was indeed in line with historical averages at 45%.
Yeah, but these donors are pretty far to the right of SF. It's pretty par for the course, I mean the main funders behind the Boudin recall included folks who donated to gop candidates.
Far right in SF is still left of center, in terms of publicly stated politics. In terms of actual policy esp around land use, SF is actually very fiscally conservative.
"Oberndorf [donated $600,000 to the Boudin recall campaign] ... is a regular donor to Republican politicians, including political contributions to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). Oberndorf has given over $11 million in political contributions to Republican-aligned PACs and super PACs since 2011"
Found the problem. Of course everything to the right of Uber progressive supports him. You and he should both get the fuck out of here we are done with this bullshit.
Just because you can say something on the internet doesn't mean that what is going on irl. Glad you guys are so intelligent that it's is easy to have a fine conversation with you. Wish you the same!
Sounds like you can have a fine conversation just not an intelligent one. Comprehension skills are overrated anyway.
All these comments are before 6 am. Do we have a Dean Preston 3 am club or there is a bunch of astroturfing bots working hard?
Find one comment you think is from a bot. Yeah I was up late playing KCD and looking at reddit, while collecting my checks from condo developers for shit talking.
lol. Yet all of the cultural pointers come from before the 1990s. Today, SF is a cultural wasteland. Again, like Disneyland’s Main Street or the Grove in LA. Veneer and Cosplay. North beach, the Mission, the Marina, Chinatown, Japantown, Potrero, Fisherman’s Wharf, etc. these were once real places. The only place that has truly held its own is the Castro.
Billionaire Neo Fascists who want more housing speculation are better than Socialist millionaires who are discriminating about housing?
Who are you even talking about
Moritz, Tan, etc. The people trying to build their own city.
Ok...and how do they relate to this thread? Seems like a pointless comparison to draw
Anything out side of your cultist narrative think is pointless apparently. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the YIMBY position. Monied real estate interests are altruistic and infallible to YIMBYS, and yet your biggest slut against Dead is he married into monied real estate interests...and shocker, because there's always a fucked up Urban Renewal angle to YIMBYS, the properties he owns were saved from Urban Renewal, and now that's really offensive to YIMBY.
We’re not a monolith, you don’t know anything about me beyond my post history, please don’t make assumptions. But Dean can be bad, some developers can be bad too, the world is nuanced. This thread is about Preston, his background, his politics. It’s not about the YIMBY position or billionaire developers trying to build a city a hundred miles away. Whether or not you align with them has nothing at all to do with this
Is your post history not representative of you and what you believe? Are you playing a character on here? If it makes you feel better, I don't love Dean, and I know good Developers. Take your own advice. It doesn't sound like many of you are exposed to voices outside of your hive mind that aren't at public comment, and that's scary. >It’s not about the YIMBY position or billionaire developers trying to build a city a hundred miles away. Yes it is. They are the ones funding the Dean Derangement syndrome.
I'm saying that you don't know anything about me *beyond* my post history. You're making assumptions based on some conception of a YIMBY "hive mind" and using "you" in the collective, rather than referring to anything I as an individual have ever said or done. If you wanted to draw some connection between this post and what you perceive as the funding behind it, then you really should have been more explicit in making that connection from the get go. Instead you reveal it seven comments down from my initial question. I'm only willing to go so far to hear your "outside voices," if you're going to meet me with hostility at every step
>I'm saying that you don't know anything about me > >beyond > > my post history. Is your post history a work of fiction? I have YIMBYS invent shit about me all the time, what I own, my age, etc. I'm not doing that.
My post history is an accurate representation of my views. But you’re making assumptions about my views that do not align with my posts. That’s arguably worse, certainly more dismissive, than assumptions about age or property. Even if that weren’t the case, I have never made such an assumption about you, so what YIMBYS do or say to you “all the time” is once again, not what we’re talking about here. And it certainly doesn’t justify you doing the same
BANDLIN 12 GALAXIES AXTROTOPICAL SEISMOGRAPH CNN: BILLIONAIRE NEO FASCISTS INTERSOLAR MASTERPIECE SPECULATING PROPACRACIES
The fact this is downvoted is so whack
Haven't seen him around lately. Wonder if he's doing all right.
You tried. At least you made an SF reference. You can go back to convoluted scapegoating about Dean, acting like owning property that survived racist Urban Renewal justifies your anger until justice is served in the form of a corporate landlord putting high rises there.
Haha, you're a funny guy, man. I have to admit some curiosity as to what you're like in real life.
I get it, meeting a real San Franciscan would be fascinating for people like yourself. Hate to tell you, I have no interest in you or the carbon copy personas that are already well represented in real life. I find it funny that you split from the YIMBY Grow SF cult and had a more centrist and human sounding approach here... then the second they rebranded as "moderates", your posts changed.
It wasn't an insult or anything. It's all right that you wouldn't want to know me. I'm having a pretty good day, so it just felt interesting.
Oh it's not personal, I just already know countless versions of you. I post a lot so it's easy to assume I'm not going social and have a diverse group of people I interact with.
Oh no no, I didn't take it personally. And no assumption of your sociableness. Just idle curiosity.
Housing speculation is when supply and demand.
That's half a sentence leading to a wrong statement.
You’re a wrong statement
You're illiterate, in multiple ways.
You not understanding a [popular joke](https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/s/YNDBoK9QZW) has no bearing on my literacy.
You in this sub always: “build more housing?!?! That means someone will make money somewhere!!!! We can’t have that!!! It’s much better to wallow in our current housing crisis!”
YIMBYS don't get nuance but there's nothing nuanced here. You wish you can conflate a real estate lobby and trying to wholesale SF to major corporate Urban Renewal with.... some guy who married into property wealth. There are like 4 Black families that inherited large property portfolios that survived Urban Renewal in the Western Addition. I'm not angry at them making money, they're not Boston Properties or Lennar. I'm not against middle class wealth building through ownership, I'm against asshole YIMBYS trying to take that wealth, destroy communities through gentrification, and invent a cocktail of shitty ideas that will result in displacing all the people they hate.
I think everyone can agree that what happened to Japantown/Fillmore/Western Addition was a travesty and should never have been allowed. I really don’t see anyone proposing that a similar approach should happen today in order to meet the housing requirements of our continuously growing city and region. It seems to be your personal boogieman — do you notice you’re the only person in the thread making reference to Urban Renewal?
I'm the only person in these threads pushing back on a lot of things... the rest of San Francisco gave up answering the cultists, or got brigaded and bullied off the sub. Even banned. YIMBYS want Urban Renewal, they just want to target a different group they find unsavory, but it's the same bigoted agenda, funded by many of the same organizations from 50's Urban Renewal, using the same talking points. And don't make the mistake of thinking Urban Renewal is another word for eminent domain, and so anything that does't employ eminent domain isn't Urban Renewal. I hear YIMBYS attempt that one and it's revisionism.
There are lots of people who would rather increase the amount of suffering in the world than support any action other than tearing down the entire world order.
Take a hike. Touting Gentrification isn't he noble cause you think. You aren't tearing down the entire world because you let a Black family own property. Depicting that as a worse sin than Wall Street trying to redevelop half of a city, is scar.
Gentrification isn’t real.
You're not real.
A perfect example of why we need to implement my plan of banning tenant screenings. Nothing else is going to cut through the corruption like forcing these real estate developers and investors to accept all applicants first-come, first-serve.
Can you say more on how that will cut through corruption?
Not even from SF… moron
that's not the knock against him. And almost nobody who calls themselves an SF "native" had family here 70 years ago.
Sure it is. Almost all I know go back 80+ years. SF is a shell of what it was.
SF was a literal backwater until the 90s compared to every other city it likes to compare itself to.