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

Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems

sfgate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 74 posts

Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems

#21

Post by username223 »

epicureanideal wrote: post #17
steveklabnik wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perhaps the person should have bought a house instead of rented? Choices like these aren't even open to people who are affected by gentrification. > And I don't see why it should deny someone who can afford to live there the ability to do so. I, personally, don't feel that those with money should be able to run roughshod over those who don't.

> I, personally, don't feel that those with money should be able to run roughshod over those who don't. What other method of allocating scarce resources did you have in mind? Random selection seems less fair than high income, because income is at least somewhat correlated with producing value. I mean, if you disagree with this, you basically disagree with the free market. I agree our current market is imperfect but I…

> What other method of allocating scarce resources did you have in mind?

I've always been a fan of allocation based on who had bigger muscles and was better with a club or other blunt weapon. To each his own.

Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems

#22

Post by JerryBrown »

epicureanideal wrote: post #6

Although I generally agree with the sentiment of the article, I strongly disagree that we need specifically "affordable" housing. State-subsidized "below market rate" housing that enables people with low salaries to occupy highly-demanded space is incredibly inefficient and also likely doesn't serve the interests of the people it is supposed to help. I don't see why the ability to live in San Francisco is any differe…

You seem pretty smart. Let me ask you a question. What happens when all the middle income and low income population leave San Francisco? Who is going to work those jobs? You don't think people are going to commute from Oakland, or farther, to San Francisco to work low paying muni or janitorial positions, do you? They will get jobs where they move.

Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems

#23

Post by lukejduncan »

scoofy wrote: post #9
epicureanideal wrote: post #6

Although I generally agree with the sentiment of the article, I strongly disagree that we need specifically "affordable" housing. State-subsidized "below market rate" housing that enables people with low salaries to occupy highly-demanded space is incredibly inefficient and also likely doesn't serve the interests of the people it is supposed to help. I don't see why the ability to live in San Francisco is any differe…

As a recent nyc -> sf transplant, i think the best short term solution to making living in the bay area more affordable is to run one track of bart back and forth from 12am - 4am. SF needs a brooklyn, a real brooklyn, that you can get to when your shift at the restaurant/bar/other-service-job ends at 1am. Public infrastructure is a public good, and service industry workers can't be expected to cab it to oakland when…

I'm really interested in the NYC comparison.

I don't know anything about city planning or the history of it, but places like New York must have gone through similar transitions. What worked, what didn't? I feel like there has to be a lot of history to learn from on the topic.

Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems

#24

Post by encoderer »

steveklabnik wrote: post #14
epicureanideal wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the person should have bought a house instead of rented? If they're renting (I still rent) they should understand that rents go up and they may not be able to afford to live there. Let's say they can't buy. I am not indifferent to their problem, but I don't see why having lived in a place for a given length of time should mean that person has a right to live permanently in a place they can no longer afford. A…

> Perhaps the person should have bought a house instead of rented? Choices like these aren't even open to people who are affected by gentrification. > And I don't see why it should deny someone who can afford to live there the ability to do so. I, personally, don't feel that those with money should be able to run roughshod over those who don't.

This is a tough one. No doubt about it. No easy answers here.

I just bought a house in Berkeley (used to rent in Glen Park). I'm curious what you think about rent control laws. I know a lot of landlords are abusing Ellis Act evictions but outside of those, rent control laws do a fair job at protecting the types of renters you mention.

The city budget is flush with revenue driven from the tech boom. I am not against them using a portion of this to help with housing issues. But it seems mostly to be a lack of ideas that's stopping that from happening.

Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems

#26

Post by encoderer »

epicureanideal wrote: post #16
scoofy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a recent nyc -> sf transplant, i think the best short term solution to making living in the bay area more affordable is to run one track of bart back and forth from 12am - 4am. SF needs a brooklyn, a real brooklyn, that you can get to when your shift at the restaurant/bar/other-service-job ends at 1am. Public infrastructure is a public good, and service industry workers can't be expected to cab it to oakland when…

I also wouldn't mind if they would add some extra cars so it isn't standing room only during commute hours. How hard is it to add an extra car to an existing train? Raise my fare, I'll pay not to have to be packed in like cattle.

If only it worked this way. Fares are already set years in advance and BART management seems to have their own ideas on how they want to spend the limited resources they have.

Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems

#27

Post by sologoub »

epicureanideal wrote: post #16
scoofy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a recent nyc -> sf transplant, i think the best short term solution to making living in the bay area more affordable is to run one track of bart back and forth from 12am - 4am. SF needs a brooklyn, a real brooklyn, that you can get to when your shift at the restaurant/bar/other-service-job ends at 1am. Public infrastructure is a public good, and service industry workers can't be expected to cab it to oakland when…

I also wouldn't mind if they would add some extra cars so it isn't standing room only during commute hours. How hard is it to add an extra car to an existing train? Raise my fare, I'll pay not to have to be packed in like cattle.

I'd imagine the length of the train is limited to the shortest platform it has to support. Not from SF, so not sure if there really is room for expansion.

Frequency might be another answer - run the trains closer together, but again there are limits there too.

Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems

#28

Post by alexeisadeski3 »

scoofy wrote: post #9
epicureanideal wrote: post #6

Although I generally agree with the sentiment of the article, I strongly disagree that we need specifically "affordable" housing. State-subsidized "below market rate" housing that enables people with low salaries to occupy highly-demanded space is incredibly inefficient and also likely doesn't serve the interests of the people it is supposed to help. I don't see why the ability to live in San Francisco is any differe…

As a recent nyc -> sf transplant, i think the best short term solution to making living in the bay area more affordable is to run one track of bart back and forth from 12am - 4am. SF needs a brooklyn, a real brooklyn, that you can get to when your shift at the restaurant/bar/other-service-job ends at 1am. Public infrastructure is a public good, and service industry workers can't be expected to cab it to oakland when…

Alternatively, SF could just legalize privately owned buses.

Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems

#29

Post by timr »

So, first off, it needs to be acknowledged that this was written by the "Bay Area Council", which is a PR machine for a dues-paying group of bay area corporations, including Facebook and Google [1]. Consider the source.

Second, while I'm the first to acknowledge that SF needs to build up, it's clearly absurd to say that the tech boom is "not the cause" of the city's housing problems -- that's like saying that skiing isn't the cause of Aspen's housing prices. Nonsense. It's plain that tech is the proximal cause, even if you believe that the boom has brought both positive and negative consequences to the city (as I do).

Fair debate on this topic has to begin with the acknowledgement that the tech companies' policies are indirectly driving a displacement of non-tech workers from the city. It's dishonest to claim otherwise.

[1] http://www.bayareacouncil.org/about-us/member-companies/

Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems

#30

Post by cloudwalking »

radley wrote: post #25

"tech's shuttles are a godsend, eliminating 327,000 cars" That doesn't seem accurate. Over a third of San Francisco's population leaves town on tech buses?

"tech's shuttles are a godsend, eliminating 327,000 cars and 10,000 tons of carbon every year at no cost to the taxpayer"

I presume this means 327,000 car trips per year.

Post reply on HN