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

'We all suffer': why San Francisco techies hate the city they transformed

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 131 posts

Re: 'We all suffer': why San Francisco techies hate the city they transformed

#121

Post by mcv »

meerita wrote: post #93
sundvor wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't suck in countries such as Australia and Norway.

They have both systems. And public system always sucks, because there isn't an unlimited amount of good teachers for all the public offer and, not the same amount of resources. Private schools have better everything because there's competition.

Not true. There are plenty of public systems that work very well, and better than private systems. Just look at health care systems. Schools could be the same, but you have to invest in them. Plenty of countries have excellent public schools.

Re: 'We all suffer': why San Francisco techies hate the city they transformed

#122

Post by CaptainZapp »

emblaegh wrote: post #97
cutler wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's called capitalism. So long as property is a free market instead of a public asset this trend will continue. It's not just SF. We're seeing it all over the West.

Housing is not a free market because its supply is artificially restricted by zoning regulations meant to protect the value of current homeowners' properties.

Housing is not a free market because its supply is artificially restricted by zoning regulations meant to protect the value of current homeowners' properties.

So, you're argueing that you'll be fine living near a major hog farm in the middle of a city or a couple of major brothels (which are legal in a lot of places around the world)?

Re: 'We all suffer': why San Francisco techies hate the city they transformed

#123

Post by ehmish »

atoav wrote: post #100
emblaegh wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing is not a free market because its supply is artificially restricted by zoning regulations meant to protect the value of current homeowners' properties.

If you wanna get a flat in Berlin it is not uncommon to find 100 other people when you look for a flat. Technically this is supply and demand at play that pushes the prices into fantasy land. Which means after years you will have locals thrown out of their flats because the prices have risen so drastically that only few landlords will take their tenants side. Markets don’t value social stabilty and don’t give a damn…

A good way to avoid people being displaced is to build enough housing to meet the demand, however there's lots of (probably well intentioned) efforts which undermine this goal, most of the people voting for these things which undermine this goal are the people who originally live there themselves, so in my opinion the rage isn't justified

Re: 'We all suffer': why San Francisco techies hate the city they transformed

#124

Post by ehmish »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #122
emblaegh wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing is not a free market because its supply is artificially restricted by zoning regulations meant to protect the value of current homeowners' properties.

Housing is not a free market because its supply is artificially restricted by zoning regulations meant to protect the value of current homeowners' properties. So, you're argueing that you'll be fine living near a major hog farm in the middle of a city or a couple of major brothels (which are legal in a lot of places around the world)?

There's a big difference between a hog farm, which no-one's trying to build in cities, and where we aren't doing it for the welfare of others, and say what's more commonly struck down, which is affordable housing and homeless shelters which directly improve people's lives, even if it causes a bit of harm to the people who live in the place already

Re: 'We all suffer': why San Francisco techies hate the city they transformed

#125

Post by emblaegh »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #122
emblaegh wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing is not a free market because its supply is artificially restricted by zoning regulations meant to protect the value of current homeowners' properties.

Housing is not a free market because its supply is artificially restricted by zoning regulations meant to protect the value of current homeowners' properties. So, you're argueing that you'll be fine living near a major hog farm in the middle of a city or a couple of major brothels (which are legal in a lot of places around the world)?

Nice strawman bud.

Re: 'We all suffer': why San Francisco techies hate the city they transformed

#126

Post by emblaegh »

panarky wrote: post #104
emblaegh wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing is not a free market because its supply is artificially restricted by zoning regulations meant to protect the value of current homeowners' properties.

"meant to protect the value of current homeowners' properties" It's probably not that direct. Sure, you could build up and achieve the population density of Hong Kong, but then SF would lose the "little big city" charm that makes it a great place to be. And as we see in Hong Kong, simply adding housing units doesn't necessarily reduce the price of housing. So I'd argue the primary purpose of the zoning regs is to ret…

> And as we see in Hong Kong, simply adding housing units doesn't necessarily reduce the price of housing.

Do you have more info on that? I'd be particularly curious if the per capta price of housing increased with population at the same rate as places like SF.

Re: 'We all suffer': why San Francisco techies hate the city they transformed

#127

Post by CaptainZapp »

emblaegh wrote: post #125
CaptainZapp wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing is not a free market because its supply is artificially restricted by zoning regulations meant to protect the value of current homeowners' properties. So, you're argueing that you'll be fine living near a major hog farm in the middle of a city or a couple of major brothels (which are legal in a lot of places around the world)?

Nice strawman bud.

Where exactly is the strawman?

Parent made argument that zoning is the whole problem, is bad and entrenches home owners.

I provided two - albeit extreme - examples, why zoning is important.

Methinks that the consequences of the libertarian arguments of DAMN REGULATION! are quite often rather badly thought through. And that's what I wanted to point out.

Don't want to live near a tannery? Then you probably should be careful, when arguing for the abolishment of zoning and building regulations.

Re: 'We all suffer': why San Francisco techies hate the city they transformed

#128

Post by emblaegh »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #127
emblaegh wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice strawman bud.

Where exactly is the strawman? Parent made argument that zoning is the whole problem, is bad and entrenches home owners. I provided two - albeit extreme - examples, why zoning is important. Methinks that the consequences of the libertarian arguments of DAMN REGULATION! are quite often rather badly thought through. And that's what I wanted to point out. Don't want to live near a tannery? Then you probably should be ca…

> Where exactly is the strawman?

> Parent made argument that zoning is the whole problem

Did I though? Or that did I made the argument that some of the zoning regulations contribute to the problem of housing markets being inefficient (which is a subset of the whole affordable housing problem)?

Re: 'We all suffer': why San Francisco techies hate the city they transformed

#129

Post by Macross8299 »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #127
emblaegh wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice strawman bud.

Where exactly is the strawman? Parent made argument that zoning is the whole problem, is bad and entrenches home owners. I provided two - albeit extreme - examples, why zoning is important. Methinks that the consequences of the libertarian arguments of DAMN REGULATION! are quite often rather badly thought through. And that's what I wanted to point out. Don't want to live near a tannery? Then you probably should be ca…

It's a strawman because you are pretending that arguing for less restrictions on residential zoning (allowing the construction of more housing) is equivalent to arguing that distinctions between residential/business zoning shouldn't exist at all.

I can argue for more apartment blocks to be built without necessarily arguing for less regulations on the locations of brothers and hog farms.

Re: 'We all suffer': why San Francisco techies hate the city they transformed

#130

Post by meerita »

mcv wrote: post #121
meerita wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have both systems. And public system always sucks, because there isn't an unlimited amount of good teachers for all the public offer and, not the same amount of resources. Private schools have better everything because there's competition.

Not true. There are plenty of public systems that work very well, and better than private systems. Just look at health care systems. Schools could be the same, but you have to invest in them. Plenty of countries have excellent public schools.

Well, The PISA results are agaisnt your bias.
Post reply on HN