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

What's the Matter with San Francisco?

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 100 posts

Re: What's the Matter with San Francisco?

#61

Post by dang »

nugget wrote: post #38

California: 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.

No tangential flamewars on Hacker News, please.

Perhaps there's a substantive point to be made about California and Texas, but flat-out tribal/ideological provocation is the opposite of that, and not ok here.

Re: What's the Matter with San Francisco?

#62

Post by nugget »

tstactplsignore wrote: post #57
nugget wrote: post #38

California: 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.

Shame that this has been upvoted, because it's not really true. 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 Fran…

It's about quality of life, not relative income. I used these two states as examples because I've spent a lot of time and have a lot of friends in both. In Texas, a middle class income sets you up with a decent house, in a decent hood, with a decent school district, and a fairly low stress life. You mix with others from random walks of life. In California, it feels like you spend every dollar just to survive, and you tend to associate with a narrower spectrum of peers.

Re: What's the Matter with San Francisco?

#63

Post by saryant »

tstactplsignore wrote: post #57
nugget wrote: post #38

California: 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.

Shame that this has been upvoted, because it's not really true. 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 Fran…

I think "significant" is probably overstating things. In the bottom quintile in San Jose has a 12.9% chance of making it to the top, Houston is 9.3% (nearly the same as Sacramento).

I grew up in California but moved to Houston half-way through high school. The school I wound up in in Houston was light-years better than the one I left in California.

Re: What's the Matter with San Francisco?

#64

Post by diogen »

throw_away_555 wrote: post #43

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…

"San Francisco would look like Manhattan within two years."

A crowded, hyper-expensive, tourist trap with limited housing that most locals avoid? Good goals.

"This would all be fixed very quickly if it was legal to buy some land, demolish what's on there, and build a skyscraper instead."

"Economics concerns itself with what actually happens when you incent people though, not what we intend by those incentives."

Simple narratives make for good rhetoric but poor action. Especially when those narratives are driven by what I'm assuming is your libertarian politics.

Re: What's the Matter with San Francisco?

#66

Post by nugget »

dang wrote: post #61
nugget wrote: post #38

California: 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.

No tangential flamewars on Hacker News, please. Perhaps there's a substantive point to be made about California and Texas, but flat-out tribal/ideological provocation is the opposite of that, and not ok here.

My comment wasn't meant to be tangential or start a flamewar. I think the article hits upon one of the most important issues of our time, namely how we want to structure our most important urban centers moving forward. There are very real quality of life issues at stake. Like many others here, I don't think of myself as Californian or Texan but as an American who has lived in various places at various times and who votes with his feet as opportunity arises. I used a bit of tongue in cheek snarkiness to drive the point home. Imagine my first comment as a political cartoon and you might see it in a better light.

Re: What's the Matter with San Francisco?

#67

Post by vrrm »

dylanjermiah wrote: post #54
vrrm wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How many low income people can afford to live in SF now? Not many at all. There would be vast amounts of cheaper housing if there weren't artificial constraints imposed.

No argument from me on that score. ...nor even that SF political culture lead to the current state.

But getting rid of artificial housing constraints is a far cry from saying: how dare non-rich people even think they should be able to live somewhere with good economic opportunities and a high quality of life.

Re: What's the Matter with San Francisco?

#68

Post by narrator »

refurb wrote: post #55
narrator wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The NIMBYism is what makes San Francisco a nice place to live. 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"?

Yeah. Tell them they could live in a nice big apartment tower in the Marin Headlands and have a quick commute to the Presidio and Chrissy Fields across the Marin BART, which also got shot down in part by Marin NIMBYs concerned about population density[1]. Of course, Chrissy Fields and the Presidio would just be quaint names as they would be massively built up and look like SOMA if there weren't all these darned NIMBYs around.

[1].http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2013/04/23/imagine_hopping_on_...

Re: What's the Matter with San Francisco?

#69

Post by skybrian »

devalier wrote: post #47
encoderer wrote: post #5

The 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 think our progressive politics IS to blame: for deluding San Franciscans into believing such a thing is possible. Actually it is possible. But the irony is that the person who came up with best idea that would have fixed/prevented this problem, has now been ostracized as a "fascist" by the left-wing tech community: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/04/formali... If circa 2007, San Francisco itself h…

Do new residents get shares? If so, how do you deal with dilution? Seems like that would become a reason to want to keep people out.

Re: What's the Matter with San Francisco?

#70

Post by ectoplasm »

Lazare wrote: post #23
smtddr wrote: post #4

I just had a discussion about this with a coworker. I very strongly agree with this article. Diversity does not survive in expensive areas and I strongly believe that is worth preserving in San Francisco. I understand the problems rent-control causes, but if it were removed and all residential areas jump up to market price then diversity would be completely destroyed. That might not mean anything to a lot of people w…

> Diversity does not survive in expensive areas Arguably true. > I understand the problems rent-control causes, but if it were removed and all residential areas jump up to market price then diversity would be completely destroyed. As a matter of theory, it's hard to see that rent control actually protects diversity. And emperically, it's absolutely not doing that, in San Francisco or in other cities which have tried…

Rent control is about not increasing rents by too much each year while you are living there. Once you move out, the landlord can agree to a new lease at any amount. The only way to circumvent this is to assign your lease to the next tenant when you move out. Most people just move out after a while and the apartment goes back on the market. You get some very long term tenants, but so what? It's a small percentage of the population.

Given this, I think rent control is fairly ineffective at preserving diversity, but I like it because it means that people can't be forced to move all of a sudden because their landlord puts the rent up by $500 a month. I don't believe that the already astronomical rents in SF would go much higher if rent control was abolished anyway.

That said, building more housing obviously helps. As does making nearby cities nicer places to live.

Post reply on HN