For those who haven't studied economics: When you restrict the supply of something scarce or the demand for it goes up, the price increases. In this case the "something" is housing. It's essentially illegal to build anything in the bay area which means the supply isn't changing much. But the demand is skyrocketing. Therefore the price is skyrocketing. This would all be fixed very quickly if it was legal to buy some l…
What's the Matter with San Francisco?
51–60 of 100 posts
Re: What's the Matter with San Francisco?
#52[deleted]
It's funny you mention homelessness in SF and attribute it to liberalism, because it is partly attributed to Reagan closing California’s public mental health institutions and releasing the mentally disabled into the streets. It sounds more like you have a bias than a point.
Second, they didn't close them to save money, they closed them because locking someone up in a facility was deemed inhumane.
Re: What's the Matter with San Francisco?
#53San Francisco is basically 7 miles by 7 miles. How much of what is there are you going to tear down to accommodate the influx of tech? Since gold rush times San Francisco has seen ebb and flow of populations and boom and bust periods. There is continual change, that said if it allows continual teardown of existing buildings and building of high rises, might as well be in Manhattan.
Re: What's the Matter with San Francisco?
#54The problem to me is that people want an amazing city with a booming economy and gorgeous landscapes to be "affordable" for the man on the street. I think our progressive politics IS to blame: for deluding San Franciscans into believing such a thing is possible.
I agree. How embarrassing for them that they even think they're worthy to be in the same geography as those who live in SF. Poor people should go to poor cities without economic resources, jobs or infrastructure. Say Detroit! That way they can be with other poor people and know their 'place'. Residents of those cities can barely wait for the influx to take what few jobs they have and drive down already low wages, tha…
Re: What's the Matter with San Francisco?
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was voted down and is something of an inflammatory comment but there's truth to it. You see it throughout the Valley and the entire Bay Area. It's why there is little density in the Valley in my opinion, why the public transit isn't very good among other things. I'm afraid it's hard to change. People who paid so much for their Valley homes certainly do not like the idea of the supply dramatically increasing and…
The NIMBYism is what makes San Francisco a nice place to live. You know Marin Headlands? They had plans to cover that whole area with a subdivision[1]. A bunch of NIMBYs got together back in the 60s and blocked that and now all these people who left some overbuilt sprawl to live here want to live near there. However, they want it to be cheap and want to drastically expand the urban footprint to make it cheap. Go figu…
So the next time someone complains about how expensive the city is I should point across the bay at Marin and say "that's your trade off"?
Re: What's the Matter with San Francisco?
#56I disagree. I've worked for a couple "limousine liberals" in New York. So has my wife and so have many of my friends. Many of the limousine liberals are assholes (not that he's very liberal, nor is he wealthy, and he's also fictional... but think of Frank Underwood). Sure, they vote Democratic, but they're nasty, elitist people who will hurt your career for any reason or no reason at all, and who put a lot more stock into meaningless social prestige (connections, pedigree) than typical conservatives. Their liberalism is mostly an air they put on in order to make themselves socially acceptable since they can't hide their wealth. (That's not to say that all wealthy liberals are like that. The type certainly exists, though.) Frankly, it's at the point that I don't really care about a person's macropolitics. Some of my favorite people are conservative (I think they're wrong, but that's another issue) and some of the worst people are nominally progressive (and probably sincere in their support for left-of-center politics). As with religious belief, some expect a correlation between position and ethical character, but the actual correlation seems to be near zero.
Frankly, I think that this was intentional. It has nothing to do with being "a conservative" or "a liberal". This NIMBYism is about maintaining high house prices; it is about being a selfish piece of shit. It just gets a leftist veneer because these people are good at coming up with an argument that other people will listen to. End of story.
I think the progressive anti-growth sentiment is earnest; it’s people honestly trying to protect their city from unwanted change.
That's the opposite of "progressive". They're leftist, but that's not the same thing as being progressive. Kim Jong-Un is a leftist. So was Stalin. So are many of the Euro-rednecks
The U.S. is different from Europe in that our mouth-breathers, kooks, racists, regressives, and assholes are more numerous on the right of the economic spectrum... to the point where tropes are made of it. In Europe (and in NYC and San Francisco) the authoritarian nutjobs and the xenophobes and the anti-progress crowd is more evenly split between the left and right.
Some component of the Bay Area housing evil is ill-thought-out liberal politics (see: legacy rent control systems that don't allow rents to rise even with inflation) but much more of this stuff is exclusionary than people will admit to.
Re: What's the Matter with San Francisco?
#57California: incessantly talks about the need for equality more than anyone else in the world; creates least equal, most economically stratified society in the United States where all except the independently wealthy feel uneasy. Texas: makes fun of Californians who constantly preach about inequality; creates a pretty equal, egalitarian society that most citizens feel comfortable in.
The Gini coefficient of CA and TX are extremely similar [1]- CA is ranked #44 in the US, and TX is ranked #43.
However, social mobility of the poorest percentiles is significantly higher in Californian cities [2]. In fact, of the major US metropolises, the top four best cities for social mobility of children in the bottom quintile are: San Jose, San Francisco, Seattle, and San Diego, in order. [2] Social mobility in Texas is significantly lower, and extraordinarily lower throughout the rest of the southern US. (Texas is a nice exception)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gini_co...
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/business/in-climbing-incom...
Re: What's the Matter with San Francisco?
#58The problem to me is that people want an amazing city with a booming economy and gorgeous landscapes to be "affordable" for the man on the street. I think our progressive politics IS to blame: for deluding San Franciscans into believing such a thing is possible.
And in addition to all those things, they want to do it in a fixed land area with low density housing for everyone. It's the ol' iron triangle. In this case the corners are something like "Affordable, desirable, no growth, pick two"
Re: What's the Matter with San Francisco?
#59California: incessantly talks about the need for equality more than anyone else in the world; creates least equal, most economically stratified society in the United States where all except the independently wealthy feel uneasy. Texas: makes fun of Californians who constantly preach about inequality; creates a pretty equal, egalitarian society that most citizens feel comfortable in.
Re: What's the Matter with San Francisco?
#60It's very difficult to build a city to serve two populations, one rich and one poor (or at least average). I would love to work in SF but have zero desire to live there because it's too expensive for everyone but the IPO crowd.
There is another way to look at this. The city serves two populations: people who currently live in a city, and people who would like to immigrate to the city. As a resident of a growing city, I find it somewhat puzzling and inconvenient that it's taken as an article of faith that large city growth is a good thing. Growth is good, but it's also bad: it brings congestion, filth, and higher housing prices. Even with th…
You can't have your cake and eat it too.