151–160 of 361 posts
- Global amount of wealthy people goes up
- Demand for a spot in a city goes up
So if you extrapolate this 100 years, you will end up in a situation where even the worst cities of 2018 will be unaffordable for the regular person.
News from 2029: Skylynr, the 'Uber of nanoassembled highrises', last night replaced 44 San Francisco Victorians with apartment buildings. Reached for comment, SF's Planning Department said the overnight construction violates a city moratorium, to study displacement issues, now in its 14th year. The Board of Supervisors plans to address the issue in an emergency session next Tuesday. A Skylynr spokesperson says over 4…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
63% of SF is renters, but are 63% of those eligible to vote in SF renters? If even a quarter of those people are immigrants, that tips the scales quite a bit.
Btw, European Union lets every resident vote in local (city and town) elections. Only for the parliamentary and presidential elections, you need to be a citizen to vote.
Or Google, Apple, Facebook could grow the next 200,000 jobs somewhere else? Everyone talks about housing affordability and NIMBYs and we get into class warfare and home-appreciation snobbery, but the simple thing I can't understand is how will the area's transportation infrastructure scale up? There's no credible solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually no, or not the way you mean. This is a legitimate moral trap: the "policy" at hand is construction permitting and land zoning, and those are almost exclusively local laws and regulations set at the city and county level. Those governments, by design, serve the interests of their local citizens. That is, the population they serve is inherently skewed toward existing property owners. You can't fix this by comp…
Funny you should mention Palo Alto, but here is a direct example of the effects of SB35 wrenching control in just the manner you described: The Law: https://therealdeal.com/la/2017/10/05/will-new-california-la... The Effect: https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/04/02/community-reacts-to-d...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
63% of SF is renters, but are 63% of those eligible to vote in SF renters? If even a quarter of those people are immigrants, that tips the scales quite a bit.
Btw, European Union lets every resident vote in local (city and town) elections. Only for the parliamentary and presidential elections, you need to be a citizen to vote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who could have guessed, policy makers that serve the hand that feeds them?
> policy makers that serve the hand that feeds them? More like, California and Federal level policymakers have been too lenient and let town and city level politicians make too much selfish policy that hurts the state and country level economy and progress. The economic powerhouse areas don't belong only to their current residents. Everyone in the country has a right to strive for wealth and a better life by moving t…
Its wretched, but that is the society we live in today! Why haven't you picked yourself up by your bootstraps yet? /s
Just quoting the last paragraph. This is the kind of honesty people need. > Intellectual honesty requires taking numbers seriously. Either we prioritize making the Bay Area affordable for all of us or we don’t. The less housing we build, the more wealth will be trapped in high housing prices. Unless we decide to grow our housing stock to accommodate our economy, we are continuing to choose the interests of those who…
At what point though can we declare the choice has been made and just lean in to whatever conclusion has been decided? It seems like we’re always stuck in an indecisive state of choosing between the interests of the wealthy and the interests of the struggling, and we can never get out unless we make the “right” choice (which is always implied to be the interests of the struggling) Maybe the choice has already been ma…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If density increases the people who will benefit the most are current landowners. If you have single family home on a big lot, its value will go up many times if you can suddenly build an apartment building on it.
Most current home owners have no interest in selling to a developer or developing ourselves. We just want to continue live in conditions that were present when we bought it: a nice house with a garden on a quiet street. Yes, that is selfish, but I'm not going to apologize for not wanting an apartment complex next door. That said, I'm not going to vote against a state level politician who wants to relax zoning laws to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If density increases the people who will benefit the most are current landowners. If you have single family home on a big lot, its value will go up many times if you can suddenly build an apartment building on it.
Most current home owners have no interest in selling to a developer or developing ourselves. We just want to continue live in conditions that were present when we bought it: a nice house with a garden on a quiet street. Yes, that is selfish, but I'm not going to apologize for not wanting an apartment complex next door. That said, I'm not going to vote against a state level politician who wants to relax zoning laws to…