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

Marc Andreessen slams new multi-family affordable housing

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 141 posts

Re: Marc Andreessen slams new multi-family affordable housing

#51

Post by mushufasa »

legerdemain wrote: post #41
mushufasa wrote: post #29

Aside from all the hypocrisy etc... isn't this concept just plain wrong? Doesn't more housing + business increase the property value of an area? I could see the first-order effects being a reduction of surrounding property as supply increases, but the second order effects of more people are almost always accretive. The downtown area of a city is typically some of the most expensive real estate.

Atherton is literally a town of nothing but mega-mansions with very, very little in the way of commerce or industry. Its entire raison d'être is to be a retreat for the ultra-wealthy. Having ordinary people walk around in your billionaire enclave lowers property values.

> Having ordinary people walk around in your billionaire enclave lowers property values

I understand this is the argument is being made. This just seems to me like this is an opinion stated as if it were a fact, and not a tautological truth of property valuation.

Re: Marc Andreessen slams new multi-family affordable housing

#52

Post by washbrain »

8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote: post #25

Sadly, this is all very predictably Bay Area progressive. Yes, I'll put up the BLM sign on my window, but no, you cannot build anything for the riffraff near my Victorian, we wouldn't want to endanger the historic character of this neighborhood.

There's a bunch of this in Seattle too - where neighborhoods are raising upzoning, despite the fact that building mixed use creates walkable neighborhoods, increases character, brings in new businesses, and generally improves things.

Thankfully, Washington seems to be moving to do away with single family only zoning.

Re: Marc Andreessen slams new multi-family affordable housing

#53

Post by TigeriusKirk »

VectorLock wrote: post #31
imapeopleperson wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand why NIMBY hate is in vogue. What’s wrong with letting a nice town stay nice? We don’t need to turn everything to shit just to satiate socialist schadenfreude. Build it somewhere else

>Build it somewhere else Okay... _where_? Thats the whole point of why NIMBY is reviled. Not In My Back Yard.

If no one is saying YIMBY, does anyone really want it?

Re: Marc Andreessen slams new multi-family affordable housing

#54

Post by mushufasa »

SkyMarshal wrote: post #44
mushufasa wrote: post #29

Aside from all the hypocrisy etc... isn't this concept just plain wrong? Doesn't more housing + business increase the property value of an area? I could see the first-order effects being a reduction of surrounding property as supply increases, but the second order effects of more people are almost always accretive. The downtown area of a city is typically some of the most expensive real estate.

>The downtown area of a city is typically some of the most expensive real estate. You're probably correct except in the case of the most expensive and exclusive neighborhoods in the country. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/managing-wealth/062416...

That list includes Tribeca, NY and Bacon Hill, Boston, which is described as "This historic neighborhood in the heart of Boston"

Re: Marc Andreessen slams new multi-family affordable housing

#55

Post by washbrain »

golemotron wrote: post #28
t_mann wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's how you think, then at least I hope you're not writing massive essays asking (the rest of) the entire the nation to build more housing, even if it makes neighbourhoods ugly.

There's plenty of space in the US. Grow wide, not dense. It's good policy.

What you are saying is, "convert farmland to housing and highways."

It's an inefficient use of space, it socially isolates us, and it has devastating ecological consequences.

Re: Marc Andreessen slams new multi-family affordable housing

#56

Post by tomjakubowski »

legerdemain wrote: post #50
8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote: post #25

Sadly, this is all very predictably Bay Area progressive. Yes, I'll put up the BLM sign on my window, but no, you cannot build anything for the riffraff near my Victorian, we wouldn't want to endanger the historic character of this neighborhood.

Atherton is not your typical "Bay Area progressive," unless your cartoon idea of Bay Area progressives is Marc Andreessen, Eric Schmidt, or Steph Curry.

Just curious, has anyone asked Steph's opinion on building multi-family housing in Atherton?

Re: Marc Andreessen slams new multi-family affordable housing

#57

Post by quantified »

fasthands9 wrote: post #37
mstipetic wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don’t understand this mindset, shouldn’t you stop caring about money at a certain point? So what if one of your houses decreases in value, you’re set for life. Is it some weird money obsession/disease?

I am a huge YIMBY but pretty sure he is stating arguments that he thinks will be compelling to the rest of the voters in his town. Most people their prob have net worths north of 10M - but entirely wrapped up in their property values. Solution is to just not give local towns such strict control. Otherwise there is truly no incentive to allow building like this

I'm doubtful of both of those points. Perhaps I've not seen the part of town where the merely very affluent live, but there's not that much of the town to see. I'd guess that 25% or less of their wealth is in their Atherton properties.

Re: Marc Andreessen slams new multi-family affordable housing

#58

Post by aidenn0 »

imapeopleperson wrote: post #11
helloworld11 wrote: post #6

>“I am writing this letter to communicate our IMMENSE objection to the creation of multifamily overlay zones in Atherton,” wrote Andreessen and his wife Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen in an email. “Please IMMEDIATELY REMOVE all multifamily overlay zoning projects from the Housing Element which will be submitted to the state in July. They will MASSIVELY decrease our home values, the quality of life of ourselves and our ne…

I don’t understand why NIMBY hate is in vogue. What’s wrong with letting a nice town stay nice? We don’t need to turn everything to shit just to satiate socialist schadenfreude. Build it somewhere else

TFA is specifically about Andreessen publicly saying CA needs to build more housing, but then privately saying "don't build it here"

> Build it somewhere else

If everybody says "build it somewhere else" where are you supposed to build?

Re: Marc Andreessen slams new multi-family affordable housing

#60

Post by washbrain »

TigeriusKirk wrote: post #53
VectorLock wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Build it somewhere else Okay... _where_? Thats the whole point of why NIMBY is reviled. Not In My Back Yard.

If no one is saying YIMBY, does anyone really want it?

People are saying YIMBY. There's a whole YIMBY movement.
Post reply on HN