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

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 380 posts

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

#271

Post by timr »

raldi wrote: post #213
timr wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was wrong about the 1k net -- that's the article's quote from Aaron Peskin, which I read as their summary. But your original comment ("64,000 in 2014") is still way off: “This official census data [the American Community Survey] shows a one-year in-migration of 63,991 people, with an out-migration of 62,757 residents — a net population increase of 1,234.” That's the article's quote from Peskin. The article contends…

> Peskin's numbers look low, but your original claim ("64,000 in 2014") is wrong by a factor of >500%. You misread my comment. I never claimed a net gain of 64,000 people. I said that 64,000 people moved in in 2014, 52,000 moved out, for a net gain of 12,000 people. This is exactly in line with your census numbers.

You said that 64,000 people moved in (incorrect; some were born) and that 52,000 were "displaced" (also incorrect).

Every large city has a flux of people moving in and out, constantly. What matters is the net change. You can't simply take the top-line number, subtract housing, and conclude that everyone else was "displaced".

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

#272

Post by MBlume »

bhickey wrote: post #221
skewart wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

With Prop 13 in place, cities and towns can't adjust taxes to cover their budgets. It behooves a Bay Area municipality to seek out commercial investment and drive away residential.

Agreed, Prop 13 is a huge part of the problem. Anyone concerned about the problem of housing in CA should consider calling their state representative and telling them to repeal prop 13.

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

#273

Post by erikpukinskis »

freyr wrote: post #224
Houshalter wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man "entitlement" is such a weird word, and such a weird way to frame the issue. There are property owners who would like to build on their own property, not hurting anyone. And being told they're not allowed to because rich people like the aesthetic. There's poor people being priced out of their own city because of this. Who's entitled? And this is hardly the first time a US city has experienced growth.

Yes, it's somewhat a matter of perspective. Although I'd point out that it's not just rich people who appreciate San Francisco's aesthetic.

Have you met poor people who care about vertical zoning laws in San Francisco or are you just assuming they exist and speaking for them?

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

#275

Post by jessaustin »

NotSammyHagar wrote: post #249
hodwik wrote: post #2

I say this as a conservative: Building limits are systemically classist and racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system. If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. Remove occupancy laws where they're not about safety. Remove property line setbacks. End parking requirements. End requirements about private kitchens and bath…

It sounds appealing to have no building limits. How about if I want to start fraking on my land near your land? Cities in Texas like Dallas don't like this, so they passed laws saying you can't have hydraulic fracturing on the land in the city, because it causes small earthquakes and could cause pollution. Guess what happened, the state legislature passed a new law saying cities couldn't pass laws against frakking.

...and that's why Dallas was swallowed up by a great crack in the ground.

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

#276

Post by infosample »

tzs wrote: post #194
infosample wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure citation is needed to prove the origin and consequences of segregation. Black people could not live in white neighborhoods, black people could not go to school with white people until 1960. Whether classist, racist, or coincidence, the results are obvious.

> I'm not sure citation is needed to prove the origin and consequences of segregation And I didn't ask for one. I want one on the origin of school districts. As you noted, neighborhoods were segregated. As a consequence of that, everything local was de facto segregated, but that doesn't mean you can infer that everything local has a racist origin. For instance, since neighborhoods were segregated a neighborhood's sew…

The sewer system and fire department were vastly inferior in the segregated neighborhood of Five Points in Denver, CO. Source: http://www.nolegacylost.com

I'm surprised segregated/poorer neighborhoods having worse services is up for debate.

Segregation had racist origins. Segregation was by race. But I concede, not everything local has a racist origin, obviously.

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

#277

Post by Apocryphon »

old-gregg wrote: post #258

I suspect that building more will not make a dent because everyone (at least everyone here in HN comments) assumes that more construction is the solution with _everything else_ staying the same. But it won't. More housing will bring more people. SF is one of the most desirable places in the world to live, with striving economy, great climate, liberal culture and breathtaking scenery. Half of Americans want to live in…

There's a lot more space in the Bay Area. If we truly put our minds to it, we could expand from Novato to Gilroy, from Pacifica to Contra Costa.

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

#279

Post by icebraining »

nvader wrote: post #178
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 without children have a way of turning into people with children, sometimes unexpectedly.

They don't usually suddenly turn into people with children of school age, though.

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

#280

Post by brbsix »

Houshalter wrote: post #211
freyr wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the one hand, you have established residents pushing back against expansion, construction, and denser housing -- perhaps to preserve what they value in their community, or perhaps out of personal interest and to drive up their property values. On the other, you have a massive influx of tech workers who have convinced themselves that they must live in this small, overpriced city for their basic livelihood, and that…

Man "entitlement" is such a weird word, and such a weird way to frame the issue. There are property owners who would like to build on their own property, not hurting anyone. And being told they're not allowed to because rich people like the aesthetic. There's poor people being priced out of their own city because of this. Who's entitled? And this is hardly the first time a US city has experienced growth.

You'd expect property owners to be entitled to build on their titled property, yet somehow this has turned into a pejorative.

It reminds me of people arguing for higher taxes accusing others of being selfish. Yes, it's completely selfish that someone would like to keep the money they've earned and yet completely selfless that you feel you have a right to it.

Down and down we go into opposite land.

Post reply on HN