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

#281

Post by brbsix » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 11:13 PM UTC

freyr wrote: post #207

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.…

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…

The city of San Francisco doesn't need to accommodate anyone, they simply need to get out of the way to let others do it.

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

#282

Post by jessaustin » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 11:14 PM UTC

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…

If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and wherever they deem there is demand.

It's hilarious that some replies to this proposition complain about the Mexicans moving in and using local services like schools and sewer treatment, while others complain about the Chinese buying and not using local services! I'm hoping that these are not written by the same "well-meaning liberals", but it does seem likely.

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

#283

Post by infosample » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 11:14 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #130

lukasm wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"school district" - this is exactly what OP is suggesting. Another obstacle with classist and racist origin. It really blows my mind why some countries have such incredibly stupid laws. Can you image a law when you can buy only in one shop if you are from a certain district? That would suck tremendously. No competition.

Do you have a citation for the claim that school districts have classist and racist origin? As far as I can tell school districts arose at a time when it was completely impractical for children, other than those whose parents were wealthy enough to send them away to boarding school, to attend a school that was not local, and at a time when it was generally believed that local government should be responsible for loca…

>Do you have a citation for the claim that school districts have classist and racist origin?

The 1896 Supreme Court case, Plessy v. Ferguson. Among these facilities were public schools, often located just miles apart, which separated white and colored students. In almost all instances, schools which educated colored students were underfunded, extensively degraded, and/or lacked the necessary materials to rigorously challenge the students. It was also estimated that the amount of per capita expenditures devoted towards colored students was 40-50% lower than for white students, further deepening the educational inequality between the two ethnic groups.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_diversity_in_United_Sta...

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

#284

Post by home_boi » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 11:19 PM UTC

hodwik2 wrote: post #16

yardie wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Property tax comes after the fact. You move to a new area with kids now. You pay your property tax at the end of the year. But the kids need school right now and the district has to: find property to build a new school, raise bonds to fund it, build the damn thing, hire staff. A modern tract home can be built in as little as 2 weeks with modern prefab construction. Schools take much longer.

The students escaping the ghetto will still be getting a measurably better education on the strained suburban school than they will at the ghetto school they're currently stuck in.

What about the kids who go to the suburban school? Kids from the ghettos can simultaneously be the victims and causes of the state of their school.

Just an anecdote, I went to an upper middle class suburban high school. The poorest kids in my school were the biggest bullies and class disruptors.

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

#285

Post by Decade » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 11:20 PM UTC

noobermin wrote: post #162

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 ma…

Yeah, but did you stay on the Pacific island?

Remote work doesn’t necessarily mean I don’t want to mingle with others. It means I can stay at home when a child is sick or visit relatives for a week, and still work and get paid.

I like the meetups. From my office, so far I have walked to Google, Symantec, Salesforce, and a bunch of other companies. It’s like being in a conference, for free, all the time.

Supposedly there’s job security in having all these companies nearby. Not that you’ll keep your job, but that there are so many other places to work nearby.

I think people here are generally optimistic about change and progress, compared to people in other places. It’s self-affirming. Techies, after all, are still merely human.

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

#286

Post by christianmann » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 11:22 PM UTC

rconti wrote: post #243

anarazel wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Berlin used to have a lot more inhabitants, about 1 million more around around 1940 than now. Not all of the living areas from back then still exist, but it means there are some reserves. In addition to that, while there's obviously some pressure against just moving outward, it's in the middle of flat, mostly unused, land. Not comparable to SF's space constrained situation. (Oh, and I do miss Berlin)

I visited once, and loved it. Of course, my expectation was that it was more dense than SF, so when I found a source that confirmed it, I was all too willing to trust it. But in retrospect (based on your protest on the matter), the housing itself was quite dense in many areas, but there were many parks and large spaces of open areas between the housing blocks.

Wikipedia very unhelpfully tells me that SF has 17k/mi^2 and Berlin has 4k/km^2, which works out to about 10k/mi^2.

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

#287

Post by CamperBob2 » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 11:38 PM UTC

gorkemyurt wrote: post #226

CamperBob2 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two things that continually surprise me about life in the modern, Internet-enabled age... two things that I would never have dreamed would happen, if you'd asked the 1996 version of me what American life would be like in 2016. One is our increasing indulgence in irrationality, to the extent that we almost celebrate it. I would never have guessed that hard-right social conservatism would still be a dominant…

"techies/hippies/yuppies/homeless people/Republicans"? Let me guess you write poems for a living?

Because I'm suggesting that overly-entitled whining is an equal-opportunity avocation?

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

#288

Post by drumdance » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 11:40 PM UTC

pfarnsworth wrote: post #215

drumdance wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So do you feel like Saudia Arabia is extracting money from the West? And while we worry about being dependent on foreign energy sources, should they be worried about foreign money sources? Google and Facebook succeed in part because they attract the best engineers. Those people aren't going to move to the midwest or wherever just because it's "better" for the economy. It's called trade.

Look at the inordinate amount of wealth built up in Saudi Arabia along with its massive income inequality and then you tell me.

One may as well pass a law banning high tide.

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

#289

Post by cynicalkane » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 11:44 PM UTC

wwweston wrote: post #245

BurningFrog wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the reason foreign money is pouring in to SF real estate rather than a zillion alternatives is that it's a good investment. And the reason for that is precisely the very restrictive policies designed to maximize real estate value. So if you legalize housing construction, the foreign money problem will disappear as well.

For a few years, I've been challenging people when this discussion comes up to give examples of situations where increasing housing supply resulted in falling prices. As far as I can tell, without a fundamental demand drop, this rarely if ever happens. And you've hit on one of the reasons: the investors who want in want into a market where real estate commands the prices it does.

Generally, people don't build housing supply with the intent of oversaturating the market and losing money!

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

#290

Post by Decade » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 11:47 PM UTC

SonjaKT wrote: post #220

Hi guys, it's me, Sonja Trauss, AMA.

One of your volunteers got me involved with the Balboa Reservoir CAC, so I’ve been going to those meetings, except when they reschedule it to Wednesday evening (I already have something scheduled for Wednesday evening, why do they keep rescheduling transportation to Wednesday evening, I wanted to hear the presentation), and I wonder, do you see benefit in having heavy BARF representation in so few meetings?

A bunch showed up for a meeting early last year, and then disappeared until February, when the committee published the revision to lower the maximum allowed density. For the rest of the year, local anti-housing residents complained about those invaders from Oakland (such provincialism!) without much counter-point. And a contingent from the Mission keeps pushing to associate random Spanish words with unrealistic economic policies. (“I come from Poder, and I believe in 100% affordable housing!”)

It seems that small community meetings have outsized political influence, but I have a busy life. I like my job, I volunteer to tutor kids in math and science in the evening, and sometimes I cook and clean. How can I increase my influence in community politics?