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

California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 645 posts

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#451

Post by buss »

avocado4 wrote: post #338
buss wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed 100% I'm very involved with YIMBY Action here in SF: I'm on the board of both YIMBY Action and YIMBY Law, and I'm also running for local office in the current election: https://buss2020.org If you have any questions about YIMBY, send them my way!

Are there any unfair obstacles you face as a newcomer trying to unseat an incumbent?

I'm not sure calling it unfair is necessarily correct, but the incumbents use ballot props to increase their name recognition. It works like this:

- A Supervisor puts a proposition on the ballot - organizations funnel money into the campaign for the ballot prop - then when the ballot prop advertises they include names of the people running for office

It's why SF has _so_ _many_ ballot props: they are the legal way to bypass the fundraising limits we imposed on individual electoral campaigns. Ironically, if we repealed our campaign finance limits, there'd be less dark money and far fewer ballot props.

I don't have a ballot prop to attach my name to, so I have to do old-fashioned campaigning (with some modern, high-tech things, too :)

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#452

Post by irq11 »

XMPPwocky wrote: post #178
irq11 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not a “NIMBY”, but I believe the YIMBY moniker is counter-productive to your cause. It automatically frames the question in a sophomoric way, where the “other side” is an evil force to be mocked and dismissed. In reality, there is no such thing as a “NIMBY”, just a collection of people with differing - often rational - interests concerning any given project. Until and unless you address these interests, calling p…

"not in my backyard" is exactly what you describe- the stereotypical liberal response of "yes, we should build affordable housing, but not HERE, where I live- put it somewhere else, where I'm not affected by them- can you imagine all the crime that the Poors would bring to such a nice area". in other words, virtue-signalling about vague, general principles of increased development...buuut when that development actual…

Yes In Your Backyard is literally everybody. That’s the point. It isn’t ideological. Most folks love the idea of building when it doesn’t affect their own lives!

Even most “YIMBY” supporters are actually “Yes In Your Backyard”, because nearly everyone has some local environment they want to protect. Don’t want a pork rendering plant or a sewage treatment center or a strip club next door to your home? Congratulations: you’re a “NIMBY” too! It’s a sophomoric epithet that makes you feel good and superior to fling around, but does nothing to convince people who don’t already agree with you.

If you don’t understand this, you are doomed to fail to achieve your goals.

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#453

Post by buss »

Reedx wrote: post #437
buss wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed 100% I'm very involved with YIMBY Action here in SF: I'm on the board of both YIMBY Action and YIMBY Law, and I'm also running for local office in the current election: https://buss2020.org If you have any questions about YIMBY, send them my way!

"I won't throw my hands in the air and blame a boogeyman, I won't ignore data because it doesn't fit my ideology... It's time we stop blaming everyone else and start taking responsibility." This is encouraging to see. I think Andrew Yang showed there's a real hunger for a solutions and data oriented approach, eschewing tribalism. Although perhaps still in a nascent stage, there finally seem to be signs of an increasi…

Thanks! It was a real bummer when he dropped out. I donated to his campaign and have a friend who was organizing for him down in LA. At least he made UBI mainstream!

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#454

Post by dominotw »

infecto wrote: post #449

Fuck California and fuck the Bay Area. Just a bold statement. I wish for change but i don't see it happening. I love the weather, love the environment and sometimes love the people here but after living here for a number of years, I am started to not understand it. I pay pretty high taxes to live here. We have the most embarrassing property tax laws that include business property. I walk to work and walk through so m…

looks like you are describing a specific part of 'bay area' . lots of burbs don't have these issues.

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#455

Post by zionic »

infecto wrote: post #449

Fuck California and fuck the Bay Area. Just a bold statement. I wish for change but i don't see it happening. I love the weather, love the environment and sometimes love the people here but after living here for a number of years, I am started to not understand it. I pay pretty high taxes to live here. We have the most embarrassing property tax laws that include business property. I walk to work and walk through so m…

Just remember to adjust your voting habits when you inevitably move somewhere else.

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#456

Post by rowborg »

i_am_nomad wrote: post #115

YIMBY should more properly be called YITBY (yes in their back yards).

When a developer wanted to build a 5 story condo building on an entire block across the street from the SF property I've owned for the last ten years, many of my neighbors opposed it. I wrote to our building's ownership and told them that we should support that project and that my only question was "can they add a few floors?"

Repeal prop 13 and my taxes will go up enormously--and I'll vote for that repeal at any opportunity.

Some of us do actually believe that the long term common good is worth sacrificing our own personal short term gain.

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#457

Post by bobbydroptables »

throwaway100773 wrote: post #421
bobbydroptables wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really hard to wrap your head around whether a city is building a lot by looking at a raw number. But fewer than 7,000 building permits in a city of 8 million is frighteningly little. You need to compare it to population growth, decades of building backlog, job growth, etc.

New York City has been losing residents for some time. This is not a supply and demand thing as much as easy money policy chasing hard assets. I’ll have to dig it up the numbers, but Manhattan many condos are vacant, and have been bought by foreign money who don’t live in nyc or investors looking to park assets.

It's a complex problem but the value of NYC real estate for foreign investors assumes scarcity of NYC real estate.

Foreign money or no, if you have a very desirable city with a growing job market and stagnant construction, prices will appreciate. I would challenge you to find a single counterexample

Foreign money doesn't help prices but it's more a symptom of our problems than a cause.

Also, NYC population is not declining. I wish. There have been some stagnant years but nowhere near enough to compensate for 50 years of underbuilding.

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#458

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

XMPPwocky wrote: post #178
irq11 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not a “NIMBY”, but I believe the YIMBY moniker is counter-productive to your cause. It automatically frames the question in a sophomoric way, where the “other side” is an evil force to be mocked and dismissed. In reality, there is no such thing as a “NIMBY”, just a collection of people with differing - often rational - interests concerning any given project. Until and unless you address these interests, calling p…

"not in my backyard" is exactly what you describe- the stereotypical liberal response of "yes, we should build affordable housing, but not HERE, where I live- put it somewhere else, where I'm not affected by them- can you imagine all the crime that the Poors would bring to such a nice area". in other words, virtue-signalling about vague, general principles of increased development...buuut when that development actual…

> "yes, we should build affordable housing, but not HERE, where I live- put it somewhere else, where I'm not affected by them- can you imagine all the crime that the Poors would bring to such a nice area".

The caricature doesn't really help things.

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#459

Post by d3ad1ysp0rk »

lopmotr wrote: post #407
kbenson wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP could likely have replaced "mostly old white people" with "mostly the same demographic", but it doesn't convey the same information, even if you don't assume implied racism as you did. The important thing being conveyed is lack of diversity, not whiteness. In the United States, saying something is "mostly white people" conveys that other ethnic groups are not present for some reason (whether it be them self-select…

To value diversity of ethnicity or race, you must believe there are intrinsic differences between people which are determined by their ethnicity. That's one of the definitions of racism. A non-racist wouldn't be bothered what race their neighbors were just as most people aren't bothered by the color of their carpets. In the candy example, you would believe the color is an important determinant of some quality of the…

That's some wild mental gymnastics! Believing that there is value in having ethnic diversity does not mean you believe there are specific differences in races due to biology. It means you believe that people that grew up in different places have different ideas of the world, and different traditions. It means that you are not blind to American and world history and its impact on different immigrant and native cultures. It means you know that white people have differences in culture and tradition, and thus just like having a town full of Steve's would be boring, having a town full of white people is a bit the same.

Since you're running with the candy analogy... your logical next step is way off. GPs candy analogy was supposed to be simple such that we could all start on the same page - either you're being purposefully difficult to try and argue your racism point, or are simply missing it. I like all colors of starburst. They taste different. Different is GOOD. I don't want an all orange package.

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#460

Post by dkhenry »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #324
dkhenry wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the most common argument I hear against building, but I am firmly convinced that the reason you have the commute problem in the Bay area isn't because of the number of people, but because the resistance to building has forced development further and further out. Consider that there is still housing growth, but its in South San Jose, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy. Those people all have to drive past Los Gatos, Cambe…

Well there is also the issue that the VC's and tech executives would rather workers have to do hour plus commutes to offices conveniently close to SFO and Sand Hill Road than they having to drive out to Vallejo. And much less have live in Kansas city or some such god forbidden place.

That is because at the end of the day VC's want you to spend all your money so they can get more of your ownership. There is no incentive for them for fund companies in middle america where their dollars aren't in such high demand.
Post reply on HN