111–120 of 213 posts
One thing I would really like a clear explanation of: When public officials in CA cities talk about "affordable housing", there is actually some definition of this, isn't there? And it doesn't usually match what people in casual conversation mean by affordable housing, right? "Affordable housing" doesn't just mean a normal house or apartment at an affordable price, does it? Does it mean public housing units built and…
"...and rules that compel developers to meet labor and environmental standards that often exceed what’s required for luxury condominiums." It's not just rules. Funding is competitive, and if you want a competitive bid you need to promise the world. Parking, green technologies, accessibility, community space, lots of amenities for residents, landscaping, not to mention the cost of ongoing compliance. "Another is Calif…
This is so depressing to see. These are the symptoms of a system slowly grinding to a halt under its own weight. Compare the tax code in 1970 (or earlier) vs today (1). Regulations and laws keep getting more and more complex. It keeps getting slower and costlier to get anything done. Then throw in the aging infrastructure, the greater wealth inequality along with significantly decreased social mobility. Un-affordable…
I know this will be downvoted because people aren't really interested in solving the real problem. We could fix the whole SF homeless population problem in the space of one parking lot. Just build micro apartments of 10'x10' feet. Make it 150' wide at the base: 15x15 = 225 x 40 stories = 9000 inhabitants. 100' feet might not be much, but it's a hella of a lot more space to live in than hong kong, where people barely…
I'm not sure building a ghetto is the right answer. Whats stopping anyone from claiming a 10x10? Can I claim one? You're grossly oversimplifying the issue.
After moving to America a while ago, one thing that struck me is how a lot of things are designed as effectively regressive taxes: the poor pay more than the rich. I opened a basic bank account with a giant American bank. The account has an exorbitant monthly fee, something like $15, but it’s waived if you keep a sufficient balance or have a steady salary. So the only people who pay the crazy fee are the broke people…
$15/mo is equivalent to ~$14,400 balance at 1.25% APR [0] so anyone with a higher balance than that across their big bank low-interest/no-interest accounts is paying more than $15/mo.
[0] I chose this number as something you can actually get in an FDIC-insured account at a more generous online bank like Ally
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's odd to me that anyone finds this compelling. You have a right to wear whatever t-shirts you like. You don't have a right to prevent other people from wearing t-shirts with colors you find objectionable. Yet, somehow in housing we've decided that, no, you actually do have the right to object to all kind of innocuous nonsense (window styles, setbacks, paint colors, and on and on). There's nothing so trivial that i…
I will never buy a property that's subject to an HOA board of approval for things. Mostly for the reasons you list above. However, people who did buy in an area subject to an HOA presumably did want that and agreed to it ahead of time. I don't think that should allow someone to come in, buy into the development, and unilaterally decide "because my liberty" that they don't have to follow any of the HOA rules.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HzSAmOQuyjU
We can replace New Zealand with the US, Canada, UK and Austrailia and the story is almost exactly the same (even the bad actors are consistent).
Take the money and run (now that WFH/WFA has gained ground).
Running in place financially does not build character, contrary to popular belief.
I know this will be downvoted because people aren't really interested in solving the real problem. We could fix the whole SF homeless population problem in the space of one parking lot. Just build micro apartments of 10'x10' feet. Make it 150' wide at the base: 15x15 = 225 x 40 stories = 9000 inhabitants. 100' feet might not be much, but it's a hella of a lot more space to live in than hong kong, where people barely…
You've just described a 560 foot tall prison cube. No cooking, toilets, corridors or walls apparently. Perhaps the inhabitants whose true crime was poverty, will be happy to inhabit your force walled thought experiment. Some would be reticent. But I foresee great things coming from this most lateral solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the right to private and personal property is in place (basically having some money) and trading. Then the right to build a house is a consequence. As long as you by land that doesn't have a lien on it you can build a house.
In theory yes, but there are so many asterisks attached to building a house. You need to run through a gauntlet of bureaucracy to even get permission to build on your land. All of this immensely increases costs and becomes a tool for limiting new housing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course there's so much more to it, but there isn't really a single source I can link you that makes this argument. One example I can easily show is the history of planned freeways in the Bay Area that were canceled due to environmental concerns. Take a look at what areas the canceled freeways would have connected, then take a look at the demographics of those areas. Notice in particular how no freeway (or rail!) c…
Robert Moses was criticized for doing similar things in New York City (making overpasses too low so buses couldn't go through, etc). Have you read The Power Broker by Robert Caro?
I also think the common framing as freeways "cutting a path through neighborhoods" is exactly the wrong way to look at it. San Francisco's, for example, were based on this 1935 traffic study. The whole point was to get already-existing traffic up off the streets and keep neighborhoods livable: https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5409261018/in/album-...
There's (unfortunately) a real-world example I can point to showing this still holds up in the 21st Century. The northernmost part of the Central Freeway carried more than 50% crosstown (non-neighborhood) traffic in San Francisco but was torn down in the very early 2000s and replaced with the horrible Octavia Blvd that keeps killing cyclists and has made neighborhood traffic worse in every way, even necessitating crosswalk closures. Here's the full study on before and after the "Freeway Removal" (now there's a dogwhistle for ya!) https://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/2019-03/Final%20Re...
"In the absence of meaningful improvements to travel improvements, the reduction in automobile capacity has not been accompanied by noticeable mode shift. Instead, the neighborhood has been challenged to effectively deal with high peak‐period traffic levels and resulting congestion"