211–220 of 361 posts
Or Google, Apple, Facebook could grow the next 200,000 jobs somewhere else? Everyone talks about housing affordability and NIMBYs and we get into class warfare and home-appreciation snobbery, but the simple thing I can't understand is how will the area's transportation infrastructure scale up? There's no credible solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most people I know in San Francisco don't own cars and certainly don't make use of freeways as part of their commute. With high-density cities and good public transit, you really have much less need for cars. Also, given that cars are inherently dangerous, cause environmental harm, and take up a lot of space, it seems like it's in the public interest to discourage car ownership/use.
Most people I know in San Francisco don't own cars You must not know a big cross section of people then. Maybe in the downtown core, but a trip across the city will show very little available street parking and most houses with garages filled with cars. It's a small minority of the city that don't have cars.
http://sf.streetsblog.org/2014/08/15/car-free-households-are...
"Census: 95% of New SF Commuters Since 2006 Don’t Drive Solo"
http://sf.streetsblog.org/2015/09/25/census-95-of-new-sf-com...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"again against original idea of prop 13 to just help elderly with living in their places when retired" But if that isn't the case, then wouldn't a home have to be sold to cover the tax increase? So you couldn't keep a home in the family, either.
Is it a declared right to keep a home in the family? Also why new homeowners not inheriting it are supposed to be paying property taxes in full?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that's any more selfish than someone wanting to move into the Bay Area from somewhere else.
Moving to areas of opportunity is about the most American thing ever. Do you think everyone should just stay where they happened to be born?!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moving to areas of opportunity is about the most American thing ever. Do you think everyone should just stay where they happened to be born?!
No, not at all. But I don't see why wanting things to stay similar to when you bought the house is any more selfish than wanting to barge yourself into an area that may not be able to absorb the additional population.
https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most current home owners have no interest in selling to a developer or developing ourselves. We just want to continue live in conditions that were present when we bought it: a nice house with a garden on a quiet street. Yes, that is selfish, but I'm not going to apologize for not wanting an apartment complex next door. That said, I'm not going to vote against a state level politician who wants to relax zoning laws to…
The conditions do change though, even if the buildings don't: you'll gradually be surrounded by different people as prices climb and climb. Perhaps, sooner or later, they'll look down on you as the undesirable they don't want nearby.
It has nothing to do with the inhabitants.
It's about the ugliness of these kind of buildings and everything that goes with increased density (traffic, street parking etc.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most current home owners have no interest in selling to a developer or developing ourselves. We just want to continue live in conditions that were present when we bought it: a nice house with a garden on a quiet street. Yes, that is selfish, but I'm not going to apologize for not wanting an apartment complex next door. That said, I'm not going to vote against a state level politician who wants to relax zoning laws to…
You own your land not the conditions that surround that land.
But I can have the desire for the conditions to stay the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If density increases the people who will benefit the most are current landowners. If you have single family home on a big lot, its value will go up many times if you can suddenly build an apartment building on it.
Most current home owners have no interest in selling to a developer or developing ourselves. We just want to continue live in conditions that were present when we bought it: a nice house with a garden on a quiet street. Yes, that is selfish, but I'm not going to apologize for not wanting an apartment complex next door. That said, I'm not going to vote against a state level politician who wants to relax zoning laws to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If density increases the people who will benefit the most are current landowners. If you have single family home on a big lot, its value will go up many times if you can suddenly build an apartment building on it.
Most current home owners have no interest in selling to a developer or developing ourselves. We just want to continue live in conditions that were present when we bought it: a nice house with a garden on a quiet street. Yes, that is selfish, but I'm not going to apologize for not wanting an apartment complex next door. That said, I'm not going to vote against a state level politician who wants to relax zoning laws to…
Just quoting the last paragraph. This is the kind of honesty people need. > Intellectual honesty requires taking numbers seriously. Either we prioritize making the Bay Area affordable for all of us or we don’t. The less housing we build, the more wealth will be trapped in high housing prices. Unless we decide to grow our housing stock to accommodate our economy, we are continuing to choose the interests of those who…
If density increases the people who will benefit the most are current landowners. If you have single family home on a big lot, its value will go up many times if you can suddenly build an apartment building on it.