[deleted]
Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”
141–150 of 261 posts
Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
California has a initiative right? Couldn't it be done through a statewide ballot measure?
No, you cannot just vote to delete a city you don't reside in, even in California
Why not? The subdivisions of California are creatures of state law, either statutory or constitutional. An initiative can modify statues or the constitution. There are three limitations on them (Art. II, section 8, (d), (e), and (f)) but I don't see how any of them would apply here.
Do you see a federal constitutional or statutory doctrine that would prevent it from doing so?
Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's great, but it seems kind of orthogonal and non-scalable to the problem of the Bay Area housing crisis. Are you proposing that everyone in SF move to places like the Central Valley (driving up price) and start driving around cars (increasing traffic and pollution)? What about folks who don't have the luxury of jobs where they can work remotely?
>What about folks who don't have the luxury of jobs where they can work remotely? I would bet >50% of the people working in the bay area who say they can't work remote are doing jobs that could very easily be done remote. Do you work on a computer? You can do that remote.
edit: I phrased this originally in a way that the community didn’t care for.
Plenty of people work on, and require physical access to, computer systems that can’t practically be made available to remote workers.
Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Brisbane is their town and they should determine their own values and courses of action. Do you feel the same way about other critical shortages that cause massive human suffering?
Not sure you want to go down that path, but if so: If you are employed in a tech job somewhere in the United States, , you are very likely in the top 20% of Americans in terms of income, and the top 1% in the world. Perhaps much higher. I take it you are willing to give all that up in the face of the crushing poverty in the rest of the world. Bay area housing shortages are nothing compared to the critical shortages t…
All problems are relative. By your logic we should all abandon whatever we are doing and move to a third world country to provide humanitarian aid. We can and should simultaneously address resource shortages around the world, whether they are low or high up on the Maslow hierarchy.
Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you cannot just vote to delete a city you don't reside in, even in California
Why not? The subdivisions of California are creatures of state law, either statutory or constitutional. An initiative can modify statues or the constitution. There are three limitations on them (Art. II, section 8, (d), (e), and (f)) but I don't see how any of them would apply here. Do you see a federal constitutional or statutory doctrine that would prevent it from doing so?
If you move the goalposts to modifying the State Constitution, sure, you can do anything that doesn't conflict with the Federal Constitution.
The votes would never materialize. In Palo Alto or Los Gatos you couldn't even get 2% of voters willing to surrender their right to local governance.
Why not turn this around...SF can agree to become part of San Jose. Are you still interested?
Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure you want to go down that path, but if so: If you are employed in a tech job somewhere in the United States, , you are very likely in the top 20% of Americans in terms of income, and the top 1% in the world. Perhaps much higher. I take it you are willing to give all that up in the face of the crushing poverty in the rest of the world. Bay area housing shortages are nothing compared to the critical shortages t…
All problems are relative. By your logic we should all abandon whatever we are doing and move to a third world country to provide humanitarian aid. We can and should simultaneously address resource shortages around the world, whether they are low or high up on the Maslow hierarchy.
That’s not my logic, that is the grandparent’s, taken to a more logical conclusion. You have to be willing to apply the same reasoning to yourself that you apply to others.
Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”
#147Those of us who grew up in less desirable environments (where they have real winter) are perfectly content with living out farther, and commuting in on the BART. I personally live out by the Delta surrounded by fresh air, fresh fruit, and nice people (we have a strong community and frequently see people we know out and about, it's great). My commute into SF is about 90 min one way, and it is the easiest, least stress…
I hope you work during your commute so you don't have to be away from family for 3 + 8
(Or more) hours. That means basically working the whole day all week, seeing your family only on weekends. I can't imagine what kind of comp someone would want for that (effectively permanent 55 hour weeks).
Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”
#148I agree with everything that the article writes. That said, if you work in SF and are looking for a concrete way to improve your commute today without adding another car to the road, consider purchasing an electric bike or scooter. I've been commuting from San Bruno to SOMA (14 miles each way) for the last 3 months on an electric bike and I vastly prefer the experience to the available alternatives. If you live closer in, it's even more of a no-brainer.
Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”
#149The real solution is for companies like Apple, Google, Facebook, etc to have the COURAGE to create large work epicenters outside of the Bay Area. Create headquarters for tens of thousands of workers in more remote areas with a strong infrastructure, with great benefits for working families. Do what Amazon wants to do with a second HQ, and create demand outside of the Bay Area. If Google created a new HQ in Kansas Cit…
> If Google created a new HQ in Kansas City, with it's fiber links, and low cost of living, and added really great benefits like free day care, etc, then won't software engineers move there, especially those that are ready to start a family? I bet you they would. I definitely would. Maybe some, but I'd be really surprised if you get substantial numbers of your top people to move - which effectively blocks the overall…
Aren't there attractive places in California where tech companies could set up offices to accommodate those who want to leave the valley, while still making sure everyone is still just a few hours drive away if they should be required in a meeting at main HQ?
Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mass transit in America is terrible, period (outside of maybe Manhattan, despite the fact that our subway has been getting worse and is in dire need of upgrading). America sucks at mass transit, but for whatever reason Americans don't seem to care. I think it's because they're complacent, don't know any better, and have this toxic "everybody for themselves" mentality that makes it impossible to improve anything that'…
Even IF there was a desire among politicians to fix the transportation issues in San Francisco I doubt they'd find a means to do so. It would cost a ton of money and congress has no idea where to get that money from. The middle class is taxed to capacity. When ~30-40% of your paycheck is taxes (including federal), and another 30-40% is exorbitant rent costs, you're left feeling quite squeezed. I myself for example, s…
One thing I wish I understood better is where the hell does the money go?
The federal budget is to a first approximation is 2/3 medicare/medicaid/social security/defense. In California across state and local has it's 2/3 being spent on health care/education/pensions. The Golden Gate Bridge cost $1.5B in today's dollars to build. Today-ish it took $6.4B to rebuild the east span of the Bay bridge.
How have things gotten so expensive, where does that money go, it just seems like despite paying a fair amount in taxes we're just not getting very much for our money.