A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M • Hacker News Board

Re: A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M

#161

Post by lisper » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 6:19 PM UTC

ucaetano wrote: post #120

lisper wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The housing and infrastructure problems in the SFBA are purely political, and self-inflicted. That's true, but the implication that these decisions are inarguably stupid ("self-inflicted") is unfair. It's a conscious and IMHO defensible choice by the people who already live here: we would prefer to deal with the problems caused by insufficient housing than by the problems caused by overly dense population.

I never claimed them to be stupid. Your words, not mine. But the Stanford professor writing about the plight of the poor workers commuting for 2 hours lives in a multi-million dollar home in Atherton and votes for anti-poor-people zoning laws. The young, billionaire, startup CEO who wants to cause a positive impact in the world lives in Los Altos Hills, where zoning laws forbid lot sizes smaller than 1 acre, and bans…

> I never claimed them to be stupid. Your words, not mine.

The adjective "self-inflicted" has an undeniable negative connotation. Why didn't you say, "deliberately chosen" instead?

> The Bay Area housing situation is a tragedy of the commons.

No, it's not. It is neither a tragedy, nor does it have anything to do with commons. Yes, it is a case of the rich making life harder for the poor, but that's only a tragedy for the poor. It's not a tragedy for the rich. It's not a tragedy for tourists who can enjoy the distinctive nature of the SFBay area while it still has redwood trees instead of being paved over with high-rise apartments. It's not a tragedy for the wildlife that lives in the privately owned open space on the Peninsula. And none of this has anything to do with "the commons." All that open space is privately owned, and all of the governments who won't change the zoning laws (including the state government, BTW) are democratically elected.

If you turn the San Francisco Bay into another Manhattan or Hong Kong that would not make it any less of a tragedy. It would just be a different kind of tragedy.

Re: A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M

#162

Post by scriptkiddy » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 6:20 PM UTC

andrewjl wrote: post #6

nxsynonym wrote: post #2

While the rising cost of housing is an easy target, why not put the pressure on the companies that are driving the influx of workers and out of control cost of living? If tech companies are drawing people into cities and forcing out those who keep the city itself operating, why not have them subsidize and improve public transportation? Lower income housing? Encourage more remote work or move their headquarters out of…

This isn't an issue of tech companies forcing anyone out. Bay area municipalities and NIMBY property owners have created a hostile regulatory environment for property developers, leading to a lack of new housing coming onto the market and driving rents upward.

A very similar thing is happening here in Los Angeles. Luckily, the Mayor and city officials are fighting back to push through more multi-family housing. It's still going to take a while before housing prices stabilize though.

Re: A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M

#163

Post by gozur88 » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 6:20 PM UTC

slackfan wrote: post #53

gozur88 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but with a self-driving car you'll be able to sleep during your commute.

I have slept and have seen plenty of other people sleep on trains all the time. Doesn't really change anything.

What it will change is your sleep will be uninterrupted by transfers, and there's no chance you'll sleep through your stop.

If it were me I'd get a van and put a bed in the back so I could lie down.

Re: A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M

#164

Post by b4ux1t3 » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 6:23 PM UTC

sidcool wrote: post #100

I travel 1 hour one way and find it brutal. Can't begin to imagine what this person must be going through.

My dad has been doing an hour and a half (each way) commute for the better part of the last decade.

I ended up doing the same commute when I started a new job last week. I'm already dying to move into my new apartment. I don't know how these people do it.

And to be clear, the hour+ commute wouldn't be so bad if it were just driving. But stop-and-go traffic does not a relaxing drive make.

Re: A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M

#165

Post by b4ux1t3 » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 6:24 PM UTC

WalterSear wrote: post #74

I feel bad for her, but if she's taking an hour and a half to leave the house in the morning, she's >choosing< to get up at 2am.

Is wanting to be fully alert before leaving the house so strange?

Re: A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M

#166

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 6:25 PM UTC

ucaetano wrote: post #120

lisper wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The housing and infrastructure problems in the SFBA are purely political, and self-inflicted. That's true, but the implication that these decisions are inarguably stupid ("self-inflicted") is unfair. It's a conscious and IMHO defensible choice by the people who already live here: we would prefer to deal with the problems caused by insufficient housing than by the problems caused by overly dense population.

I never claimed them to be stupid. Your words, not mine. But the Stanford professor writing about the plight of the poor workers commuting for 2 hours lives in a multi-million dollar home in Atherton and votes for anti-poor-people zoning laws. The young, billionaire, startup CEO who wants to cause a positive impact in the world lives in Los Altos Hills, where zoning laws forbid lot sizes smaller than 1 acre, and bans…

[deleted]

Re: A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M

#167

Post by lisper » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 6:26 PM UTC

flick wrote: post #145

lisper wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The housing and infrastructure problems in the SFBA are purely political, and self-inflicted. That's true, but the implication that these decisions are inarguably stupid ("self-inflicted") is unfair. It's a conscious and IMHO defensible choice by the people who already live here: we would prefer to deal with the problems caused by insufficient housing than by the problems caused by overly dense population.

But the thing is that you (Bay Area landowners) are not really bearing the cost of insufficient housing. In fact, you're benefiting through increasing home values (for which you are not taxed due to Prop. 13). It's renters and others like Ms. James who are being hurt. The particularly cruel aspect of this is that once these people have been forced to the edges of the Bay Area, they no longer get to participate in the…

> But the thing is that you (Bay Area landowners) are not really bearing the cost of insufficient housing.

That's not true. It makes it hard to find good help. (That was intended to be humorously ironic, but there's a serious point behind it: everything in the SFBA is more expensive than it would be if housing were more plentiful.)

> you're benefiting through increasing home values

Not really. You only benefit from this if you sell, and if you sell two bad things happen if housing prices are up. First, you take a big hit on capital gains, and second, you lose your prop 13 benefits. So rising prices make it really hard to move within the SFBA even for people who already live here.

Yes, you can sell and move away, but people don't want to do that because everyplace else sucks by comparison. If that weren't true, there wouldn't be so many people wanting to move here driving up our prices!

Re: A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M

#168

Post by thephyber » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 6:26 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #161

ucaetano wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never claimed them to be stupid. Your words, not mine. But the Stanford professor writing about the plight of the poor workers commuting for 2 hours lives in a multi-million dollar home in Atherton and votes for anti-poor-people zoning laws. The young, billionaire, startup CEO who wants to cause a positive impact in the world lives in Los Altos Hills, where zoning laws forbid lot sizes smaller than 1 acre, and bans…

> I never claimed them to be stupid. Your words, not mine. The adjective "self-inflicted" has an undeniable negative connotation. Why didn't you say, "deliberately chosen" instead? > The Bay Area housing situation is a tragedy of the commons. No, it's not. It is neither a tragedy, nor does it have anything to do with commons. Yes, it is a case of the rich making life harder for the poor, but that's only a tragedy for…

> The Bay Area housing situation is a tragedy of the commons.

For those who don't appear to know what "Tragedy of the commons" is, it's an economic concept[1] that doesn't necessarily involve a "tragedy" and "the commons" can include private property.

A recent example of "tragedy of the commons" was during the recent California extended drought, Wall Street firms were buying up struggling pistachio farms in California, drilling wells deeper than nearby farmers did, and were undercutting those farmers by siphoning the aquifer from below, encouraging those competing farmers to dig deeper wells and use water faster. "The commons" would be the aquifer / water rights that the farmers commonly depend on. The tragedy was that in the depths of the drought, other pistachio farmers were unable to afford to dig deeper, their harvests were scant, and the price of pistachios worldwide had tripled -- all of which further incentivized well funded outsiders to do the same and buy out farmers.

You can argue that SF MTA management and SF building / zoning policy isn't in the best interest of SF citizens, but pedantically arguing the semantics of "tragedy of the commons" won't win you any intellectual arguments.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Re: A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M

#169

Post by scriptkiddy » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 6:26 PM UTC

ericd wrote: post #47

andrewjl wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't an issue of tech companies forcing anyone out. Bay area municipalities and NIMBY property owners have created a hostile regulatory environment for property developers, leading to a lack of new housing coming onto the market and driving rents upward.

That's not the full story. Commercial property is much more profitable for a city than housing, so every city in the peninsula is trying to build office space, and trying to offload the cost of actually housing those new workers onto other cities. The tax code needs to be fixed to realign incentives. One proposal I heard was to make it so that the state shares the income tax of the employees that live in the city wit…

This is why I've always been in favor of Hybrid zoning. Hybrid structures are even better in my opinion. You can have a building where the bottom floors are commercial space and the upper floors are residential space.

Or you can zone an area where both commercial and residential development are permitted. Sure, living right next to a metal shop or something isn't the most pleasant thing, but it's really nice if you work at that metal shop.

This is something I saw being developed in my home town before I moved away. Along the main "downtown" strip they built several new 2 story structures where the bottom floors were shops like whole foods and such. On the top floor were various types of apartments. These particular apartments were a bit on the expensive side mostly due to it being a kind of swanky neighborhood right along the beach. That said, the concept can be expanded upon to apply to more affordable areas.

Re: A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M

#170

Post by jacinda » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 6:26 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #161

ucaetano wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never claimed them to be stupid. Your words, not mine. But the Stanford professor writing about the plight of the poor workers commuting for 2 hours lives in a multi-million dollar home in Atherton and votes for anti-poor-people zoning laws. The young, billionaire, startup CEO who wants to cause a positive impact in the world lives in Los Altos Hills, where zoning laws forbid lot sizes smaller than 1 acre, and bans…

> I never claimed them to be stupid. Your words, not mine. The adjective "self-inflicted" has an undeniable negative connotation. Why didn't you say, "deliberately chosen" instead? > The Bay Area housing situation is a tragedy of the commons. No, it's not. It is neither a tragedy, nor does it have anything to do with commons. Yes, it is a case of the rich making life harder for the poor, but that's only a tragedy for…

It is a choice. The San Francisco Bay Area is already denser than the entire country of Switzerland and has a similar GDP. However, the Swiss have incomparably better public transit. And their taxes are lower than the US.

There's no need to become Manhattan or Hong Kong. Just invest in infrastructure.