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

61–70 of 74 posts

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

#61

Post by surrealize »

timr wrote: post #54
surrealize wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's plain that tech is the proximal cause It's half of the proximal cause. Housing prices have increased because of the interaction of supply and demand. Blaming the tech boom focuses only on the demand side, but the supply constraints (height limits, zoning density limits, etc.) are just as important.

The supply didn't decrease. The demand increased. That's the proximal cause.

If you like. The policy levers are all on the supply side, though (unless you want to start kicking out major employers or something). So it's pointless to complain about demand side changes.

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

#62

Post by mc32 »

Khaine wrote: post #53
rayiner wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things that don't work: rent control, historical preservation restrictions, burdensome light air and view restrictions. Things that do work: letting rich people move in, letting developers build what they want, and using that massive tax base to build high-quality public transit.

Letting developers do whatever they please is a horrible idea. Most developers are crooks and do whatever they can to make the most amount of money, which is why most cities have city plans and zones to prevent developers from shitting on everything. Secondly, historical preservation makes a city what it is. Would Paris be the same without the Eiffel Tower? Good historical preservation enhances and defines the city.

On the other hand you have Tokyo where buildings are built for a 25-year lifespan. I would not call Tokyo a boring city, it's just different. It has its own modern character. Also, Paris was planned post WWii, unlike London which is more haphazard in configuration. The Eiffel Tower was nearly demolished after the expo. It's only now that people think of that Iron monstrosity as emblematic of the city. Sometimes a blight does take on its own charm, such as the Eiffel tower, or Tokyo (radio) tower.

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

#63

Post by timr »

surrealize wrote: post #61
timr wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The supply didn't decrease. The demand increased. That's the proximal cause.

If you like. The policy levers are all on the supply side, though (unless you want to start kicking out major employers or something). So it's pointless to complain about demand side changes.

"The policy levers are all on the supply side, though"

Are you kidding? Remember the big white buses that everyone is mad about? They play a role here.

The valley tech companies have mitigated the natural barrier that would ordinarily limit the number of tech employees living in the city -- the pain of commuting. So rather than staying close to work and building communities where they live, they use the city as a glorified suburb, but with cushy private transportation. There are a variety of things wrong with this, not the least of which is the fact that they reduce housing supply for the natives.

Econ 101 theories about supply and demand don't apply when large external forces are subsidizing the demand side of the equation. One can quite reasonably argue that instead of "building up" (which is expensive and disruptive) SF should just ban the private buses -- it would be cheaper, more natural, and would solve the same problem.

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

#64

Post by argonaut »

_delirium wrote: post #59
argonaut wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether or not free markets are the best way to allocate housing is another debate in of itself. I think they are, but the question for you is what specific method of allocating housing would be better? The beauty of free markets is that they are often, given time, self-correcting (not in all situations, which is one reason we have regulation in general). In any other market, rising housing prices would stimulate dev…

> In any other market, rising housing prices would stimulate developers to build more housing It's not clear to me that this would actually bring down prices, and existing empirical evidence of how development increases in urban cores affects prices is pretty mixed. If all else were held equal, adding supply would bring down prices. However all else tends not to be equal, and development sprees seem to often generate…

I'd be really interested in reading studies that have examined the effect of real estate development on prices. Any links?

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

#65

Post by surrealize »

timr wrote: post #63
surrealize wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you like. The policy levers are all on the supply side, though (unless you want to start kicking out major employers or something). So it's pointless to complain about demand side changes.

"The policy levers are all on the supply side, though" Are you kidding? Remember the big white buses that everyone is mad about? They play a role here. The valley tech companies have mitigated the natural barrier that would ordinarily limit the number of tech employees living in the city -- the pain of commuting. So rather than staying close to work and building communities where they live, they use the city as a glo…

Ban private buses? You mean, like, prevent people from operating private buses entirely? No greyhound? You can't mean that, because it's ridiculous, but I'm not sure exactly what you do mean.

A huge number of people employed on the peninsula would absolutely live close to work and build communities there, if those peninsula cities weren't so hell-bent on preventing dense development. There just isn't the supply there.

And what the f do you mean by "natives", anyway? Native Americans? Everyone else is an immigrant. If you moved here a year before I did, do you have some more legitimate claim to live here? I don't think so.

Of course supply and demand applies to the situation. Your suggestion of banning private buses, while ridiculous, is specifically an attempt to influence demand. Your own suggested solution assumes that the "Econ 101" theory applies.

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

#66

Post by prodigal_erik »

pmiller2 wrote: post #48
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…

>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.

How does that happen? We used to have a lot of stuff, but hiring movers never cost anywhere near even one month's rent. Are these the same people who are half a paycheck away from disaster all the time?

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

#67

Post by prodigal_erik »

sologoub wrote: post #27
epicureanideal wrote: post #16

Earlier 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.

I've never seen a BART station shorter than ten cars, though many rush hour trains only use eight or nine.

I seem to remember that BART has an outdated and overwhelmed computer system which requires greater spacing between trains (and sometimes fails all the way down to manual control). At least new cars will have three doors instead of two, which should get a train out of a station faster.

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

#68

Post by scoofy »

_delirium wrote: post #56
fishtoaster wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I understand, Bart needs that 12-4 timeslot for track maintenance. > Unlike some public transit systems with multiple sets of tracks on the same routes, BART doesn't have the duplication that would allow us to run trains on one set while performing maintenance on another. Third-rail power has to be shut down for maintenance crews to be able to operate safely and do the work that keeps the system safe and re…

It doesn't actually require extra tracks to run a 24/7 metro and also do maintenance. A very common solution is single-tracking. BART has two tracks, one for trains in each direction. What some systems do is just close one side for maintenance, and then run trains on the other side in both directions. For low-frequency service (e.g. hourly night service) it can just be a single train shuttling back and forth end-to-e…

This is exactly what they did with the G train in brooklyn on the weekends. It's 2 track only, and they would shutdown one side, transfer to the other side at Bedford-Nostram. Was it a pain in the ass? Yes. Was it way better than no service... absolutely!

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

#69

Post by scoofy »

hyperlexic wrote: post #43
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'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 po…

There are a couple places you just don't get off the train in brooklyn: east new york and brownsville, but on the whole, even areas below the JMZ: east williamsburg/bed stuy/bushwick aren't nearly as dangerous as they may seem by looking at them.

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

#70

Post by malandrew »

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…

Fully agree. I've had front-row seats to the shenanigans that are BMR housing units because my girlfriend qualifies for and has been trying to get, and the only conclusion that I can come to is that:

(1) It's a "squeaky wheel gets the grease" policy (2) They are just sticking fingers in the cracks in a dam that is leaking everywhere to plug a few holes.

The biggest problem with mollifying a large segment of the population with a lottery system is that it legitimizes a solution that never really solves the problem.

BMR housing is typically accessible to people with 70-110% of the area's median income. For every unit, there are 100+ applicants, and those are just the ones that are aware of the program's existence. The program is also riddled with fraud, with many applicants misrepresenting their income to be eligible or adding family members to the application even when that family member isn't going to live with them in the unit.

The worst effect though is that it removes many people from becoming advocates for re-zoning and building of new units. Each of those 100 people per unit now directs their time and attention towards a lottery system instead of demanding real changes from their representatives in local government. Removing those people leaves the very rich and very poor. The poor know they don't have a chance and are living hand to mouth so they won't participate at all. The rich are either well off enough to be insulated from the issue so they complain but never do anything, or the rich are the property owners extracting rent. Ultimately the only people really participating in numbers are the landlords.

Post reply on HN