This just in: young PR guy for for business lobby group thinks business is awesome.
Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems
41–50 of 74 posts
Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
When I lived in Barcelona there were some low-traffic platforms shorter than the trains that went through them. I think the cars at the end of the train had big warning signs that they wouldn't open at station [X].
Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems
#43Although 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 curious how Brooklyn dealt/deals with the issue of crime and public safety. I lived in West Oakland for while, and this seems to be the general region where a 'Brooklyn' type of spot is trying to emerge. BART station is right there, and it's close to the bridge for all-night bus lines and bikers too. But it's just such a friggin dangerous place to be (at any hour of the day or night) that I wonder if it's even possible.
Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we follow your logic to its conclusion, San Francisco becomes a city of the uber rich, with the rest of the rabble scattering across the bay area. So, what would that look like.. Some thoughts.. Good luck staffing jobs at the current SF minimum wage. You want baristas and servers and bar backs? And you want them to commute into the city? You'll get some (as you do now) but enough to run all of the cities establish…
Your concerns are really unfounded. Manhattan is basically already the way you hypothesize (with lower-income people commuting in from the other boroughs), and it works just fine.
as people have pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, the transit situation in NY is an order of magnitude better than SF. I agree with the SF is to Manhattan what the greater Bay Area is to the boroughs of New York analogy. But there's a pretty massive difference when it comes to public transit.
Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your concerns are really unfounded. Manhattan is basically already the way you hypothesize (with lower-income people commuting in from the other boroughs), and it works just fine.
as people have pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, the transit situation in NY is an order of magnitude better than SF. I agree with the SF is to Manhattan what the greater Bay Area is to the boroughs of New York analogy. But there's a pretty massive difference when it comes to public transit.
Okay, so build better transit instead of playing stupid games to "combat gentrification."
Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can build families and lives somewhere else if they can't afford to live here, right? Do people have a fundamental right to raise a family in San Francisco rather than Omaha or Austin? Are other places so horrible that we should use taxpayer money to ensure that the largest number of people possible can live in SF? And we should make it easier for the moderately low income to live here rather than people with hi…
It doesn't apply so well. It's not just about the kids you raise. It's about the fact that people's parents and grandparents and uncles and cousins live nearby. It's about friendships built over years. It's about community. What you're saying is this: Fuck those people - they don't deserve community nor the benefits of it they worked for, because they can't afford the prices you are willing to pay to kick them out (d…
So the ability to live in San Francisco should become an inherited right? Or at least being first in line for housing? Oh, I see, your parents lived here Mr. X, so even though Mr. Y is offering more money, I'll cast that newcomer aside. He isn't one of "us", who belong here.
Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems
#47Although 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…
> Should the government subsidize... I don't see why a poorly run bank which has made bad investments in toxic assets should be bailed out with taxpayer's money when it should be allowed to fail, with good banks picking up clients and assets and growth in market share... My point is there are few markets which are truly allowed to operate freely. If housing markets were not regulated, the uber rich would buy up every…
I agree with you about the toxic assets and about cheap credit, but I don't see how those interventions would encourage us to add even more interventions.
Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems
#48Although 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…
>Also, if the people who work in SF or other high income areas cannot afford to live there at current wages, there should be pressure on them to leave and work elsewhere.
The problem is that people who can't afford to live where they currently live also can't afford to move.
Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems
#49Although 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…
> Should the government subsidize... I don't see why a poorly run bank which has made bad investments in toxic assets should be bailed out with taxpayer's money when it should be allowed to fail, with good banks picking up clients and assets and growth in market share... My point is there are few markets which are truly allowed to operate freely. If housing markets were not regulated, the uber rich would buy up every…
I also wanted to say, this is really not a conflict between the rich and the poor. What ends up happening is the truly rich can afford to live in SF easily with or without subsidies. The lower and lower-middle class end up with "affordable" (subsidized) housing. The upper-middle and upper-but-not rich get stuck in the middle with no assistance and maybe being able to afford to live in the area if they save in every other area and work themselves to poor health.
Re: Bay Area tech boom not cause of region's problems
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't apply so well. It's not just about the kids you raise. It's about the fact that people's parents and grandparents and uncles and cousins live nearby. It's about friendships built over years. It's about community. What you're saying is this: Fuck those people - they don't deserve community nor the benefits of it they worked for, because they can't afford the prices you are willing to pay to kick them out (d…
So the ability to live in San Francisco should become an inherited right? Or at least being first in line for housing? Oh, I see, your parents lived here Mr. X, so even though Mr. Y is offering more money, I'll cast that newcomer aside. He isn't one of "us", who belong here.
Getting a little hostile aren't you? I actually flat out said I don't have a solution, so whatever the heck you are reacting to your own insecurity at something. I merely pointed out that what you propose has problems. And that your attitude is simply: anyone who can't afford it deserves to not have their lives considered.
Honestly, you are saying that the only consideration people should have for one another is net worth and that interpersonal relationships are of no value, yet you are angry that your lack of those same things could be used to keep you from spending your money (suggesting value). This is a pretty strange.
I do think that perhaps some consideration besides "number of dollars" should be taken in situations like this, because I don't really think a group of people should be able to so fundamentally fuck over another group because they can afford to. But those are my ethics - I value respecting people on more than money.