Earlier quoted context omitted.
> San Francisco's policies have an effect on all the surrounding cities, and all the other Americans who might want to live in SF. You could make that case for all regions of the world. Nobody is completely isolated. We breath the same air and everyone deals with the effects of pollution. It's not a reason to prevent changing existing law.
It's a difference of degree. The effect of most local policies on the region, nation, or world is negligible. The effect of San Francisco's is very large. See this magazine article on how NIMBYs pushed suburban sprawl on surrounding areas: https://web.archive.org/web/20001001083046/http://www.sfweek... See this article, on how restrictive urban land use is estimated to lower America's entire national GDP by 5-15%: ht…
Housing in the Bay Area
261–270 of 407 posts
Re: Housing in the Bay Area
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that is meant to be left to local requirements. Municipality could jack it up to 20% AFAIK.
That's the key question. The article I cited details many limitations on local governments that would seem to limit their ability to demand affordable housing.[1] Bottom line, this bill is massively supported by developers, so take that as a gauge of how much power it gives municipalities. [1] http://48hills.org/2016/05/22/a-terrible-housing-bill-looms-...
You are confused; the 48hills article is referring to a different bill[1] (affordable housing bonus) than the Governor’s budget trailer bill that Sam Altman is referring to[2]. The Governor’s bill requires that localities deterministically and expediently approve projects near transit that provide some low-income housing and comply with local zoning laws.
But speaking of the affordable housing bonus, Tim Redmond’s specific concerns seem to be that height limits, setbacks, and backyard requirements may be waived, not that there would be any reduction in affordable housing. But I agree that the affordable housing bonus law is somewhat open-ended so who knows what concession a developer might request.
[1]: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
[2]: http://web1a.esd.dof.ca.gov/Documents/bcp/1617/FY1617_ORG224...
Re: Housing in the Bay Area
#263Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
A 2% chance today, right? Increasing the supply of affordable housing should improve those odds. What's at stake here is how much affordable housing the city for negotiate for with developers. Critics argue this state bill undercuts the city's negotiating position.
[deleted]
Re: Housing in the Bay Area
#264There is so much pressure, career-wise, to move to either the Bay Area, the West Coast in general, or a major urban hub. I honestly like living in a semi-rural part of the Midwest. I like seeing fields and forests while driving to work. If I want to get out to some wilderness, I can do so in 15-30 minutes. I travel in a car that, I feel, offers me freedom. To boot, I have a nice, reserved spot in the garage below my…
The cost of living is definitely infinitely higher than living in the midwest but you certainly can find fields and forests (and actual mountains!) in the SF area. For example, the minute you cross the Golden Gate bridge, you are in Marin County, a county with a rich agricultural history, amazing natural places like Muir Woods (the setting for the ape's home in the latest Planet of the Apes), and 85.5% of it's land p…
If you're ever back in Michigan, you should visit the west side ... and also check out lake Michigan. Grand Rapids isn't as big as Detroit, but our economy is growing at a healthy clip and there's a lot of interesting things going on here.
Re: Housing in the Bay Area
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
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%…
> It was renters living in the Mission who were (not incorrectly) terrified that new development means they will get evicted and displaced. This is such a bizarre idea. How exactly do renters get displaced by adding more housing?
Because new housing doesn't magically appear around existing tenants and their furniture. Existing tenants get told to leave, then there is construction for x months, then a new building is there with more units available, and (especially if the old building was under rent control) each new unit costs more than each old unit in the building that used to be there. And its possible none of the tenants who used to live in that building can afford to live in the replacement units - tada, displacement by adding more apartments.
Re: Housing in the Bay Area
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the actual building they live in gets demolished to build another building. Or because the new building next door is filled with 'luxury' $5000/mo rents, which might drive the rent up in their building.
> because the new building next door is filled with 'luxury' $5000/mo rents, which might drive the rent up in their building. This is such a stupid myth. On par with "vaccinations cause autism" or Bigfoot. Science has studied how price depends on supply and demand very thoroughly. Increased supply always leads to lower prices.
Ok....there is clearly more housing in San Francisco today than there was 50 years ago. Why does housing in San Francisco cost more today than it did 50 years ago?
Re: Housing in the Bay Area
#267This 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…
I don't think the tech community is deflecting criticism. As a minority voting group, what are they supposed to do about the problem? The limited supply is not their fault. The refusal to bid in the market would be a meaningless self-sacrifice. The lack of healthy leverage and organization by workers in other industries have nothing to do with tech workers, who, again, are a minority power in politics.
Your premise that the tech community is not a major player in local politics because of their relatively small body count does not hold water. Money plays a large influence in local politics. Ron Conway is a perfect example of this: he dines with the mayor and provides major funding to local campaigns and initiatives, which usually win.
Re: Housing in the Bay Area
#268Can we scale the schools, transportation, etc. to support this legislature? If so, I'm all for it. But the way things stand currently, it's already pushed to the limits.
turns out its easier/cheaper to do all these things, if people actually live in a dense city rather than spread out suburbs
That's not the current environment.
Re: Housing in the Bay Area
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sadly, Marin County is "the boss-level kingdom of California NIMBYs": https://twitter.com/kimmaicutler/status/735561614368202752
I support development but I'm kind of okay with not too much in Marin because there's no viable and fast public transit from there to SF so adding a bunch of people there doesn't make as much sense (I could also be rationalizing a bias towards keeping Marin green and "country" since I want to eventually settle down there..) I really support development along established rail corridors along CalTrain and BART lines. T…
Development along the existing CalTrain and BART lines makes a lot of sense. Though it would be great if there were good public transit options in Marin, the reality is that neither CalTrain nor BART will ever go there. The development is just too expensive at this point.
Prediction: the gentrification currently happening in Oakland will soon spread to Richmond and Vallejo. Vallejo, it's crime problems aside, actually makes a lot of sense. There's a ferry there and cheap housing.
Re: Housing in the Bay Area
#270This 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…
I don't live in SF, but having spent most of the past 15 years in Europe, which is dense: it's almost completely a supply problem. SF is not really very dense at all for a place with such a high demand for housing. Random place in SF: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7718267,-122.4388549,3a,75y,... Near where I lived in Padova, which is way smaller than SF, and way, way less well off: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.3…
It's even worse in the suburbs. Everything is incredibly sprawled out. Every major city I've been to has apartment towers. It's just a more economical way to use land. Given how much demand for housing there is, there are obviously regulations in place keeping anything very tall from being built. The bay area doesn't want to grow.