In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build • Hacker News Board

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#161

Post by joe_the_user » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 6:48 PM UTC

skewart wrote: post #91

joe_the_user wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NYTimes had an article on an absolutely unregulated city in India. Sewage bumped in vacant lots is a problem. Safety outside developed areas is a problem. Still, removing parking requirements might be a good thing if creates incentive for public transit. Removing single family home mandates seems like it would be great for avoiding sprawl. But as you say, just these two. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/world/as…

You're making a massive leap from legalizing more different kinds of development in the US to a totally unregulated city in India. It's basically a strawman fallacy. The article clearly talks about a lack of many basic government authority and services way beyond zoning codes, like electricity and criminal justice. I think the lack of reliable power and sweage treatment might have a lot more to do with it being chaot…

It's not my leap, I'm responding to the parent who called for completely unregulated development.

The original comment: If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#162

Post by noobermin » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 6:49 PM UTC

narrator wrote: post #123

Serious question: why does everyone have to live in San Francisco? There are lots and lots of cheaper places to live and work, but it seems there is something that only San Francisco can do that everywhere else can't. Why aren't city planners working on creating that special "whateveritis" in their city as fast as possible? I don't want any pat answers like "the people are there" or "the jobs are there" because that'…

I will never understand how the scene of techies, you know, the likes of which gave us the ability to keep in touch with friends we haven't seen in years, who keep upvoting articles that extol the benefits of remote work and working as few hours a week as possible desires all of their workers to be located in one place.

I remember learning how to program on a pacific island with a pitiful internet connection. Most major cities (and some not as major) have more access than teenage me had. Again, what is this "wateveritis"?

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#163

Post by Tempest1981 » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 6:50 PM UTC

In March 2016, there was a slowing of job growth (increase of only 1300, vs. 8700 in February). Jobs actually decreased in the "San Francisco Area", but grew in South Bay and East Bay:

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_29771531/bay-area-job...

Nice summary graphic: http://www.mercurynews.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay...

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#164

Post by noobermin » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 6:57 PM UTC

superuser2 wrote: post #154

narrator wrote: post #123

Serious question: why does everyone have to live in San Francisco? There are lots and lots of cheaper places to live and work, but it seems there is something that only San Francisco can do that everywhere else can't. Why aren't city planners working on creating that special "whateveritis" in their city as fast as possible? I don't want any pat answers like "the people are there" or "the jobs are there" because that'…

It's not a tautology. As an employee, taking a job somewhere that is not a tech hub means that when it's time for the next job, you probably have to move. Moving cross country with the frequency that SV engineers hop between startups is a horrible way to live. If, as an employer, you move somewhere that is not a tech hub, people who can get what they need from San Francisco won't follow you. You could in principle ha…

>There's a major synchronization problem

I think the "having to move for your next job" makes sense, but what is this major synchronization problem you are talking about? Could you expand upon this?

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#165

Post by swagv1 » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 7:01 PM UTC

rconti wrote: post #140

The Times selected as an "NYTimes Pick" a comment from someone in Berlin who absolutely makes my blood boil. (S)he starts off by stating privilege as a 5th-generation San Franciscan (obviously, the kind who DESERVE to live in the city), and who fled in the tech boom of the 90s. The usual rant about whitewashing and yuppies and artists being pushed out ensues. Of course they don't want more housing built, because then…

But this is old news. The vilified industry is different, but they were saying many of the same things in the 1990s.

Then as now, not everyone is entitled to a nice two-bedroom San Francisco flat for $2000/month. Tokyo has figured that out. Moscow has figured that out. London has figured that out. Why are San Franciscans so slow to catch on?

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#166

Post by Decade » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 7:01 PM UTC

tamana wrote: post #95

lalala12399 wrote: post #22

I can't tell you how many people I know making very good money in tech and finance living in rent-controlled units paying ridiculously low rents in SF.

How? They must be illegal since those aren't longtime residents.

By being in the business before this tech boom. Finance has been a major part of the San Francisco economy since the Gold Rush of 1849 (one of the 4 US Mints is here, one of the 12 Federal Reserve banks is here, and a bunch of other banks have important offices), and techies have been getting rich and moving here since at least when HP was founded, in 1939.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#167

Post by skewart » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 7:06 PM UTC

Klinky wrote: post #126

skewart wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Building limits are systemically classist and racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system. This. Outlawing dense, urban growth does real harm to people's lives, and to the environment. It's one of the clearest examples of xenophobia and greed coallescing to extract wealth and concentrate it in the hands of the privileged few. Just because it's, say, a crowd of mostly Bernie Sanders supporters pushing to…

Simply saying "let the market decide who is worthy of housing" is also classicist and racist. Unless you explicitly define the market has to cater to "X income brackets", "Y racial demographics", and "Z% needs to be for personal housing, not commercial or industrial usage", you're basically saying "whoever has the most money". How is this better and more inclusive to the poor and minorities?

Because it works better in practice. Consider other markets where supply is not artificially constrained. There are no laws specifying how many cars can be manufactured, or how they can be priced. Manufacturers are able to make cars at a wide range of price points. And the used car market let's people buy at incredibly low prices. Or consider soap. We "let the market decide who is worthy" of soap, and yet there is no soap affordability crisis. Sure, you can spend $12 on a bar of soap, but you can get one for $0.49 too.

Imagine if we applied SF housing laws to the car market. Only allow a few thousand new cars to be made every year. Then say manufacturers have to pay a $10,000 fee per car they sell, in addition to taxes on their revenues. Of course the super wealthy start bidding up the price of cars - they're hard to get, and becoming expensive, so it's a status symbol to have one. Existing car owners are happy to see that their current car is going up in value, so they don't want to change anything. Since cars are now so expensive people decide to mandate affordable cars. So a lottery is set up where a handful of new cars get sold at bellow market rates to some very lucky people. This does nothing to make good cars more affordable to the vast majority of people who can no longer afford them. But it lets the people contendedly driving their valuable BMWs and Volvos pat themselves on the back for having done something.

Also, going back to housing, fast-growing metropolitan areas that have fewer zoning restrictions tend to have more affordable housing than ones that are anti-housing-construction. Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta have all seen incredible population and job growth but have housing that is far more affordable than in California.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#168

Post by superuser2 » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 7:08 PM UTC

noobermin wrote: post #164

superuser2 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a tautology. As an employee, taking a job somewhere that is not a tech hub means that when it's time for the next job, you probably have to move. Moving cross country with the frequency that SV engineers hop between startups is a horrible way to live. If, as an employer, you move somewhere that is not a tech hub, people who can get what they need from San Francisco won't follow you. You could in principle ha…

>There's a major synchronization problem I think the "having to move for your next job" makes sense, but what is this major synchronization problem you are talking about? Could you expand upon this?

The major SV/SF tech companies and employees aren't all going to decide to move to Omaha on the same day. For a new city to become a tech hub, some people have to take the risk of living in a non-tech-hub city for a few years while it becomes one (and if it doesn't, well, sucks for them).

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#169

Post by icebraining » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 7:09 PM UTC

joe_the_user wrote: post #86

icebraining wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For example, in Fremont right now, there's a development that was built without being placed in a school district. So the students who will live there have no real school. Why would people with children move to a place without schools?

People with children move into places without schools because they're short-sighted or because other priorities are higher for them. Some portion of people with children may not care at all about them. That's one reason why there's public education, to prevent parent's lack of concern being something that cause a child to have nearly no future. Of course, such considerations seem to be already going away, so sure we'…

Then doesn't it make more sense to prevent people with kids from living in these developments, than preventing their construction in the first place? After all, more than 50% of households have no children at all, why should they be prevented from living in a place without schools?

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#170

Post by skewart » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 7:11 PM UTC

rconti wrote: post #152

skewart wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the comment section on that article is pretty sad. The number of people whose argument against building more housing is a fear that it will make the city "ugly" is astounding. It's mind-numbingly selfish and greedy to think that a family should barely be able to make ends meet, and children should spend less time with their long-commuting parents, just so that SF can meet your personal aesthetic sensibilities.…

Well absolutely. And one commenter there (or here) mentioned the negative externalities of someone else's development driving down your property values or making your schools overcrowded or whatever. All of these things are deserving of sympathy and consideration, but.. well, currently they're getting too much of it.

Absolutely.

> or making your schools overcrowded

To which I say, build more schools! With more housing and people comes a bigger tax base and more money to fund infrastructure improvements. I don't know a single pro-construction person who doesn't also vigorously support improving urban infrastructure.