131–140 of 175 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the data does not suggest otherwise. I won't be surprised if Vancouver is very different from San Francisco, which has extremely low vacancy rates. https://sf.curbed.com/2019/3/21/18276227/vacancy-rate-san-jo...
The subtitle of that article is "But that still leaves more than 100,000 Bay Area homes empty" So, yes -- it does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The subtitle of that article is "But that still leaves more than 100,000 Bay Area homes empty" So, yes -- it does.
This is a lower rate than elsewhere in the US.
If there were 10x as many homes for sale as are currently for sale, what do you think that'd do to the price of homes in the area?
Source: https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/14/the-bay-area-has-more...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, from the people living there, what's the housing crisis?? Yes, they are trying to limit how many people are coming in, that's obvious. This is different from inclusive and diversity issues. This is about 100 new diverse people rather than 1,000. Again you can disagree with them, it is fair, but I think their approach is perfectly understandable, and if you want to argue and debate, no one should assume they ar…
It's not an assumption of hypocrisy. It genuinely is hypocrisy. A group of people are praising themselves for their inclusivity, while pushing for exclusionary policies. If they want to pursue these policies without being hypocritical then they need to change their messaging to be transparent about their desire for exclusion rather than inclusion.
I think you should explain and defend the policy you wish, instead of critizing an imaginary adversary by putting words in their mouth.
If you want more housing, hoping that prices will go down, say so. If you favor a SF Bay area looking progressively more like NY City, say so. Many people are very happy in NYC. And prices are also very high there.
Just expect some people to frankly disagree with that proposed evolution, and don't attack them by being non inclusive: this is not the question. Misrepresenting their arguments is not helping further your point of view.
(whose incumbent said "we will do anything to solve the housing crisis?" in your original point?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People currently living there don't see it as a "housing crisis". They see it as "too many people coming here, trying to change our single family house peaceful residential neighborhood into bigger buildings". So "how about limiting influx of new people / new development?" "Sure, let's do that" I understand newcomers may disagree with that approach, out of understandable self interest. But implying people currently l…
> But implying people currently living there are clueless or more selfish by defending their interests? Somebody defending their interests doesn't make them not selfish.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think access to shelter is a human right. Products and services can't be human rights.
This is truly one of the most Hacker News comments I have ever seen, calling a home a product and service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alternately, if people want to exercise their “right” to not look at apartment buildings, they should move somewhere rural where land is cheap enough that no one builds them.
That’s exactly what people did ~60 years ago. Bought some farmland way outside San Francisco, built houses and a community. No because a few billionaire execs want to keep their companies close to their houses, we are going to tear it all down? By all means, densify downtown San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose. But I don’t understand the perverse desire to add density to far suburbs.
I guess she votes to keep it that way. Wouldn't most people do so? She helped create the neighborhood that so many people envy. Anybody else who wants a similar neighborhood can go do the same thing: build a house in a cheap area with open land, then live there for 56 years. What people are demanding is to skip that effort. People don't want to build out on empty hills and then wait 56 years. They just want to take what people like her created, degrading it with excess traffic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes I've noticed that many times people don't feel the need to defend other people's rights because it wouldn't also affect them directly.
I would be forced to sell many pieces of property I do not want to sell if my ideas were implemented. I don't think it's my right to own all that. I don't need it. Someone else does. Unfortunately, they can't afford it and I can. Doesn't make it right.
It's also your right to give that property away if you like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Property rights are the foundation of the US. Calling it a privilege is a complete misunderstanding of history. We are not serfs subordinate to a lord. We are not comrades subordinate to a politburo. We are citizens. As it was written in its early form, we believe in life, liberty and property.
You're fine then with one person owning all the property?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what's wrong with fourplexes? i live in a neighborhood full of them and think they're great. they add a lot of character without additional massing, and the additional density unlocks commercial areas that are a walk away.
That's great that you like your neighborhood. Presumably you thought it was the best choice for you. I don't want to live in a high density area, so that's why I chose to live somewhere else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's great that you like your neighborhood. Presumably you thought it was the best choice for you. I don't want to live in a high density area, so that's why I chose to live somewhere else.
fourplexes fit in with single family homes[0]. what makes you averse to a fourplex in your neighborhood? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McAvinney_Fourplex