Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

grist.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 141 posts

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#21

Post by mc32 »

x0x0 wrote: post #10
ChuckMcM wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was coming to say the same thing. I think this is a good question to ask of the folks who object to building homes, "What if the people who lived in this town before you moved here had blocked the building of the home you are living in?" You wouldn't have had that wonderful experience you are trying to preserve because you would never have lived here." It is very sobering.

I live in an sf suburb. I talk to local homeowners in the dog park at night and they're all wildly opposed to density, often with a nice core of racism too (I'm white so white people say some wild shit to me; you hear references to "those people" and it's not that deeply coded.) The only thing that cheers me about all the nimbys where I live is all their kids are getting kicked out. Seriously. In 20 years when their…

To be fair, lots of people who are minorities who live in gentrifying neighborhoods also tinge their conversation with racism. To presume one "race" should be less or more prone to racism is problematic, as if they are or should be better than they show.

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#22

Post by avz »

jinushaun wrote: post #3

Love this quote: “Most people would be very uncomfortable tearing down 315 houses. But they don’t have a similar objection to never building them in the first place, even though I feel they’re morally equivalent. Those people show up anyway. They get born anyway. They get a job in the area anyway. What do they do? They live in an overcrowded situation, they pay too much rent, they have a commute that’s too long. Or m…

Looks like a case of the Copenhagen Interpretation of ethics recently discussed here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10367855

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#23

Post by cbd1984 »

fche wrote: post #17
musesum wrote: post #4

Here's Scott Wiener's post about meeting 2040 housing growth plans: https://medium.com/@Scott_Wiener/want-to-know-why-the-bay-ar... Looks like East bay is falling behind schedule. Here's housing prices since crash peek: http://west.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/hugolefebvre-ch... I live several doors down from the old KFC. I miss the old Sugoi Sushi that was there - but am fine with the new construction. Am lucky…

"Am lucky to have rent control." You are (party to) using the state to withhold justly earned economic value from your landlord.

> You are (party to) using the state to withhold justly earned economic value from your landlord.

The state is what allows a landlord to be a landlord in the first place, by making a society stable enough that property ownership is a matter of laws and contracts as opposed to guns and groups with guns.

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#24

Post by hugh4 »

7Figures2Commas wrote: post #16

It's disappointing that this type of activism is only gaining traction in places like the Bay Area. For years, I pushed for more affordable housing in Aspen, but nobody listened even though I was willing to walk 1.7 miles to get to the nearest lift.

I've been pushing for more affordable housing at Buckingham Palace. It sucks that there's only one house there and the Queen isn't selling.

And what's with the lack of affordable housing in Yellowstone National Park? There's loads of room for condos!

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#25

Post by wahsd »

mc32 wrote: post #6

I hope she wins. I hope other people see her insight. I have not seen this kind of attitude against development in other countries. Sure, some speculators will make out on some locations near transit,and some will lose out a bit. Who cares, what we need are more units, in SF, down the Camino corridor from SF to san Jose. Build up, have BART go all the way down the el cam, and have local Surface-bahns. I'm tired of th…

What you don't see to realize is that what you describe will be only a momentary and fleeing improvement. The problem is the irrational and unnecessary concentration of opportunities in that area.

So you build more buildings, create a housing glut even ... so now even more people move to the area because it's the only place where opportunities exist because it's where the wealthy sprinkle crumbs to their pest scurrying underfoot. All the sudden housing doubles from what it was before the glut and maybe you make 80% more, but all the asset owners are really the only ones who benefit and the wealth concentration cycle simply continues to distort.

What really needs to happen is that the whole area and other urban areas with similar concentrations need to be cut off from things like government funding, any tax advantages, etc. and put those and additional support into areas all around the country. That's really the only way that the cycle is broken, because what you are experiencing is a systemic cycle that no remedial action will have any kid of even mid term impact on without changing the system.

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#26

Post by hugh4 »

cbd1984 wrote: post #23
fche wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Am lucky to have rent control." You are (party to) using the state to withhold justly earned economic value from your landlord.

> You are (party to) using the state to withhold justly earned economic value from your landlord. The state is what allows a landlord to be a landlord in the first place, by making a society stable enough that property ownership is a matter of laws and contracts as opposed to guns and groups with guns.

Sure, the state is what allows you to be alive at all, because without it you'd probably have been killed by or enslaved by roving Mad Max style marauders.

Therefore you owe your life to the State and they can demand anything at all from you and you shouldn't complain. Right?

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#27

Post by vasilipupkin »

x0x0 wrote: post #10
ChuckMcM wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was coming to say the same thing. I think this is a good question to ask of the folks who object to building homes, "What if the people who lived in this town before you moved here had blocked the building of the home you are living in?" You wouldn't have had that wonderful experience you are trying to preserve because you would never have lived here." It is very sobering.

I live in an sf suburb. I talk to local homeowners in the dog park at night and they're all wildly opposed to density, often with a nice core of racism too (I'm white so white people say some wild shit to me; you hear references to "those people" and it's not that deeply coded.) The only thing that cheers me about all the nimbys where I live is all their kids are getting kicked out. Seriously. In 20 years when their…

it's not irrational to be opposed to density. Racism aside, density changes the character of the neighborhood and potentially lowers property values of existing homeowners. So, it's not surprising people are apprehensive

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#28

Post by 7Figures2Commas »

hugh4 wrote: post #19

Handy hint for people who want to live in the Bay Area and can't afford to: tough cookies. Have you considered living somewhere else? I'd like to live on a private island in the Whitsundays, but there aren't enough to go around. It has never occurred to me to whine about this fact.

We have a meetup group that gets together at 6:00 pm on the second Tuesday of every month at The Creamery in which members lament their inability to afford private islands, jets, etc. You're welcome to join us on the 13th and vent over a latte.

It's not all sadness though. I believe a representative from the local Maserati dealership will be there this week to tell us about a special lease deal available to well-qualified lessees.

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#29

Post by fineman »

gavazzy wrote: post #15
hugh4 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a rather odd perspective. Does this person also view murder as morally equivalent to contraception?

Next time they're drinking a latte or beer, smack it out of their hands. After all, having your drink taken from you is morally equiavlent to never having it in the first place, right?

And you're going to pay for it? Because there's a big difference in simply not having a latte, and having paid for one only to have to knocked all over your shirt...

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#30

Post by dllthomas »

wahsd wrote: post #25
mc32 wrote: post #6

I hope she wins. I hope other people see her insight. I have not seen this kind of attitude against development in other countries. Sure, some speculators will make out on some locations near transit,and some will lose out a bit. Who cares, what we need are more units, in SF, down the Camino corridor from SF to san Jose. Build up, have BART go all the way down the el cam, and have local Surface-bahns. I'm tired of th…

What you don't see to realize is that what you describe will be only a momentary and fleeing improvement. The problem is the irrational and unnecessary concentration of opportunities in that area. So you build more buildings, create a housing glut even ... so now even more people move to the area because it's the only place where opportunities exist because it's where the wealthy sprinkle crumbs to their pest scurryi…

One of the things that I like about various proposals for a Basic Income is that it would shift opportunities away from concentrations of wealth and toward concentrations of people (where those differ). That should reduce the pressure somewhat.
Post reply on HN