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

Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 261 posts

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#161

Post by foo101 »

tomkarlo wrote: post #127
ryguytilidie wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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)?" I don't know where you came up with this. The OP implied that by moving away from a heavily populated area and working remotely, he was able to afford more space and shorten his commute. You managed to turn no commute into increased pollution and moving to…

He didn't use a car to commute before (I'd hope) given he was in the middle of SF. But now he likely needs one to get to the grocery, take his kids to school, etc even if he's WFH. And he's likely also using more energy at home, too. So yes, more pollution - and if a lot of other people moved there, higher prices too.

Well, if a neighbourhood is good and convenient, it is only natural that more people would like to move there, more energy would be consumed and prices would rise.

Besides this obvious thing, what exactly is your point?

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#162

Post by junkscience2017 »

bradleyjg wrote: post #152
junkscience2017 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I live all the way on the other side of the country. I don't have a dog in the fight. I just suggested that the Bay Area could be reorganized into a single municipality through the initiative process if the voters of California decided to do that. Whether or not you could actually get the votes is something I'm not equipped to answer. A big part of it would depend on what people in Southern California think of the id…

Los Angeles is the result of the process people here are advocating and it is considered a civic disaster...so much so that it has had to yield to secession efforts in the entire years. Surprise, people don't want to have their mayor live 80 miles away.

Few in California would vote to create a second Los Angeles.

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#163

Post by fizx »

Mz wrote: post #156
jacobolus wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The weather is miserable for half the year, and there’s less to do. A bunch of my extended family lives in Fresno and elsewhere in the Central Valley, but I can’t imagine living there. The politicians they elect throughout the Central Valley are also absolutely bonkers.

So, serious question, explain to me why you think the weather is "miserable" and what is it you "do" all the time that you can't imagine living in Fresno? I don't get it. There are national forests there. Woodward Park is huge. There is an international airport. What kinds of activities are you into that you can't get your needs met in a city of 500,000 people, about the 36th largest city in the US IIRC, which means…

110 degrees in August.

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#164

Post by jacobolus »

Mz wrote: post #156
jacobolus wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The weather is miserable for half the year, and there’s less to do. A bunch of my extended family lives in Fresno and elsewhere in the Central Valley, but I can’t imagine living there. The politicians they elect throughout the Central Valley are also absolutely bonkers.

So, serious question, explain to me why you think the weather is "miserable" and what is it you "do" all the time that you can't imagine living in Fresno? I don't get it. There are national forests there. Woodward Park is huge. There is an international airport. What kinds of activities are you into that you can't get your needs met in a city of 500,000 people, about the 36th largest city in the US IIRC, which means…

I’m sure there’s all kinds of cool stuff in Fresno if you know where to look. It’s not the same as the Bay Area though.

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#165

Post by dabockster »

entee wrote: post #150
swendoog wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 gotte…

> where does that money go

Contractors and sub contractors. The more layers in the supply chain, the harder it is for that money to be tracked.

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#166

Post by velobro »

jacobolus wrote: post #155
Mz wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fresno is really a great place. I was there for over two years. I don't know why it gets badmouthed so much. And, yes, compared to coastal big cities in California, it is dramatically cheaper. They are starting a high speed rail line there. It is 500,000 people and much more spread out than the coastal big cities, so it is not nearly as dense. The bus system is the best I have ever seen in the US, so you can live wit…

The weather is miserable for half the year, and there’s less to do. A bunch of my extended family lives in Fresno and elsewhere in the Central Valley, but I can’t imagine living there. The politicians they elect throughout the Central Valley are also absolutely bonkers.

That's because the Central Valley is basically as conservative as any Southern state.

It's the main reason why I left there to move to the bay. I just couldn't handle their politics anymore.

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#167

Post by Mz »

jacobolus wrote: post #164
Mz wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, serious question, explain to me why you think the weather is "miserable" and what is it you "do" all the time that you can't imagine living in Fresno? I don't get it. There are national forests there. Woodward Park is huge. There is an international airport. What kinds of activities are you into that you can't get your needs met in a city of 500,000 people, about the 36th largest city in the US IIRC, which means…

I’m sure there’s all kinds of cool stuff in Fresno if you know where to look. It’s not the same as the Bay Area though.

That is generically true of any two places. But, you stated there was lots less to do there. I am curious what you are into that this seems to be true to you. What are your interests?

I was a military wife. I have lived all over. I just find your statements genuinely baffling and I would like to understand where you are coming from.

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#168

Post by abalone »

tl;dr Uses excellent maps to visualize just how dramatically worse our regional mass transit is vs. New York. Makes the point that Manhattan is very dense but still not affordable. What makes New York more affordable is the accessibility of less expensive boroughs.

Wackier highlights: calls for politically reorganizing the bay area into a metropolitan government, and confuses regional work commutes with "diversity and inclusion."

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#169

Post by patmcguire »

entee wrote: post #150
swendoog wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 gotte…

It's more expensive everywhere than it used to be, but the construction cost inflation is vastly greater in the US than in other developed countries. Construction is getting less efficient over time.

https://pedestrianobservations.com/2011/05/16/us-rail-constr... https://www.economist.com/news/business/21726714-american-bu...

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#170

Post by usaar333 »

alkonaut wrote: post #149
usaar333 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Attractive enough to pull the top talent? No

The underlying problem here is the same problem you have with remote work - it's vastly harder to get complex tasks done when people are remote. For all sorts of reasons (including project expediency), you ideally want the front-line programmers in the same office as the technical leaders.

Post reply on HN