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

Housing in the Bay Area

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 407 posts

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#101

Post by apsec112 »

abalone wrote: post #96

This is a contentious issue and in case you are not from SF and wondering why Y Combinator is taking a stand on it, it has to do with the politics of the tech boom. The plain truth is that the housing crisis is a combination of too much sudden demand fueled by the tech boom and too little supply. The tech community likes to deflect criticism of their sudden influx of relatively high-income workers and say "don't blam…

Articles by Tim Redmond are usually full of misinformation, and that one (link #1) is no exception. I could go on forever, but eg., he says:

"The problem is that the building and real-estate industries have a huge lock on California politics."

San Francisco is the #1 most development-hostile major city in the world. According to World Bank data, even in places like Ethiopia and Zimbabwe, it's still much easier to get planning permits than it is in SF. Blaming the power of the real estate industry for San Francisco's rents is like blaming the Chinese famines on capitalist saboteurs.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#102

Post by outericky »

sytelus wrote: post #13

I highly doubt this bill would pass without severe modifications. The problem is that we have two groups in population: One who own houses and other who don't. First group don't want new houses and dilute value of their property. Politicans very well knows that making this group unhappy will end their careers. The second group is often in minority outside large cities. This is why its very hard to pass laws that woul…

There is a third group - landlords. Those are the ones that have the means to scoop up multiple properties and collect the rents. I believe this to be the main problem in the build more housing plan...

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#103

Post by outericky »

jackfoxy wrote: post #97
fintler wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> San Francisco is the largist metropolitan area with the most wilderness/open space around it in the world. It's high on the list, but it's not the one with the most: Vienna 51% Singapore 47% Sydney 46% Hong Kong 40% 70% is the total green space 40% is protected Rio De Janeiro 40% London 38.40% Almost 40%! Stockholm 30% Johannesburg-Gauteng 24% New York City 19.7 % or 14% Park Score/World Culture Report San Francisc…

Believable (17.9%) if you are measuring only within the S.F. city limits. San Mateo and Marin counties and the East Bay have huge tracts of open space for metropolitan areas.

Same can be said for the surrounding areas of some of the other cities on the list.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#104

Post by loeg »

nostrebored wrote: post #93
s3r3nity wrote: post #38

This is one of the top factors preventing me from moving back to the Bay Area. It's good to know there's at least SOME serious attempt at a solution (even if folks around here are mostly pessimistic.) It still surprises me that an industry that's all about connecting the world through the internet and allowing anyone to work with anyone else on anything says "yeah but you need to work in this small area of the countr…

Somehow the city with the highest average salary/cost of living usually goes unmentioned... Seattle has two huge tech companies, a lot of mid sized tech companies, and a growing startup scene... and it's not that far away from the bay.

Shhh, we're trying to keep it a secret. :)

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#105

Post by abalone »

pj_mukh wrote: post #98
abalone wrote: post #96

This is a contentious issue and in case you are not from SF and wondering why Y Combinator is taking a stand on it, it has to do with the politics of the tech boom. The plain truth is that the housing crisis is a combination of too much sudden demand fueled by the tech boom and too little supply. The tech community likes to deflect criticism of their sudden influx of relatively high-income workers and say "don't blam…

How does the bill weaken affordable housing demands? And doesn't building more "luxury" condo open more affordable housing stock. This is such a confusing issue, everyone seems to be making sense.

My understanding is the bill has weaker requirements (as little as 5%) on affordable housing than alternatives. Think of cities and negotiating with developers over affordability, and this is a more developer-friendly offer.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#106

Post by superuser2 »

fishtoaster wrote: post #94
carapace wrote: post #65

I'm in favor of how "building in the Bay Area is approved by discretion", I call it having some power over what gets built. "Democracy" y'know? I'm from SF. I grew up here. I'm also a computer nerd. To me, the tech "industry" has been ruining the city I love since the Dot-Com boom. To me, they are an invading army culturally speaking. In a very real sense my home is being destroyed. The saddest part is, this city kin…

This town won't be for the freaks and weirdos for long: they're being priced out. You can rage against the techies all you want, but unless we can build more housing, the techies will be the only ones who can afford to live here. It seems bizarre to me that those most fervently opposed to the influx of tech in SF are doing the most to harm the existing residents. If you make it hard to build in San Francisco, there w…

I think they're hoping that eventually, investors will get tired of paying the high salaries needed to locate their engineers in the Bay Area (or salaries won't increase commensurate to cost of living, and they will stop finding engineers willing to move there).

Whether the city's culture or the tech community's attachment to the region will break first is, of course, an open question.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#107

Post by abalone »

argonaut wrote: post #99
abalone wrote: post #96

This is a contentious issue and in case you are not from SF and wondering why Y Combinator is taking a stand on it, it has to do with the politics of the tech boom. The plain truth is that the housing crisis is a combination of too much sudden demand fueled by the tech boom and too little supply. The tech community likes to deflect criticism of their sudden influx of relatively high-income workers and say "don't blam…

> increasing market-rate housing alone may not make an appreciable difference in prices where it matters most from a macroeconomic perspective: for low-to-mid income residents. This may well be possible to argue, but you're going to need a source for a claim that goes against the basic concept of supply-and-demand.

It doesn't go against it. The question is how elastic is the demand curve. If it's not elastic enough to make SF affordable for low-to-mid income residents then we may face bad macroeconomic and cultural effects. That's where price controls come in.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#108

Post by lukeschlather »

birken wrote: post #81
sytelus wrote: post #13

I highly doubt this bill would pass without severe modifications. The problem is that we have two groups in population: One who own houses and other who don't. First group don't want new houses and dilute value of their property. Politicans very well knows that making this group unhappy will end their careers. The second group is often in minority outside large cities. This is why its very hard to pass laws that woul…

Around 65% of the population in SF are renters. If it were simply homeowners vs renters, renters would win in a landslide. Who do you think was pushing for proposition I (an 18 month development moratorium in the mission) to pass? It wasn't homeowners, that's for sure. It was renters living in the Mission who were (not incorrectly) terrified that new development means they will get evicted and displaced. Why did 60%…

Are you sure that only 30% of SF voters are homeowners? Maybe in presidential elections (with 70% turnout), but in all the other elections where turnout ranges from 30-50% I wouldn't be surprised if homeowners make up more than half of actual voters.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#109

Post by elliotec »

nostrebored wrote: post #93
s3r3nity wrote: post #38

This is one of the top factors preventing me from moving back to the Bay Area. It's good to know there's at least SOME serious attempt at a solution (even if folks around here are mostly pessimistic.) It still surprises me that an industry that's all about connecting the world through the internet and allowing anyone to work with anyone else on anything says "yeah but you need to work in this small area of the countr…

Somehow the city with the highest average salary/cost of living usually goes unmentioned... Seattle has two huge tech companies, a lot of mid sized tech companies, and a growing startup scene... and it's not that far away from the bay.

I'm calling BS. Where's your source that Seattle has the highest average salary to cost of living?

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#110

Post by abalone »

apsec112 wrote: post #101
abalone wrote: post #96

This is a contentious issue and in case you are not from SF and wondering why Y Combinator is taking a stand on it, it has to do with the politics of the tech boom. The plain truth is that the housing crisis is a combination of too much sudden demand fueled by the tech boom and too little supply. The tech community likes to deflect criticism of their sudden influx of relatively high-income workers and say "don't blam…

Articles by Tim Redmond are usually full of misinformation, and that one (link #1) is no exception. I could go on forever, but eg., he says: "The problem is that the building and real-estate industries have a huge lock on California politics." San Francisco is the #1 most development-hostile major city in the world. According to World Bank data, even in places like Ethiopia and Zimbabwe, it's still much easier to get…

Which is why this is a state bill. That would be consistent with Redmond's claim.
Post reply on HN