181–190 of 280 posts
> Use these arrows to advance through the story. Uh, no.
This format is horrific - its like reading a power point presentation.
I felt like I was reading a highschooler's Power Point...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you! I can see how one might feel 'just move' is a good argument, but really NO! In chinatowns all over the country, whenever low-income residents are being priced out, the argument is always 'you can just find another place to stay'. They've lived there for decades, if not more. That's where all the people they know are. They are poor but they do have a support system, that lives with them. When they move away…
> some people feel VERY STRONGLY emotionally about where they live Those feelings are a luxury. Taxpayers should not be forced to bear the cost of someone's emotional attachments. I would prefer tax dollars be spent on relocation assistance + job placement to help get people on a sustainable path.
A family on the edge doesn't always have the luxury to move.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. The Valley is geographically constrained. The mountains enclosing it are too rugged to safely build on. The best you could do would be to permit high-rise housing which would provide some expensive housing to the high-end. A better idea would be to stop permitting any non-housing construction until the housing to job balance is restored.
This is just empirically false. High rise construction is massively cheaper than the current property values. Per square foot, suburban Palo Alto is $1409 per square foot at the median [1]. Heck, even the Burj Khalifa, the tallest building in the world, and hardly a bastion of affordable housing, cost only 1.5B / 3,595,146 = $417 per square foot. [2] More reasonable construction of 10 - 20 stories could easily be put…
If all those single-family houses were torn down and rebuilt as high-density, then surely the price per square foot would be cheaper. Property rights are pesky though.
As someone from outside the US, how much do you need to earn in order to live well in this area? There was one slide stating a minimum of $100K for a family of four just to "escape poverty". Is that really the case? And if so, how do early stage founders who aren't already rich manage to get by?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm in no way limiting their choices. I am merely discussing the limits that should be put to best utilize limited government resources. If they do not like those limits, they do not have to accept the aid.
That doesn't address my basic point at all: what do they want for their lives?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quite oposite. I dont understand why someone who traveled world and has medical condition would settle down in California. Just try Greece for couple of months. Doctors are great here, speak english and are much cheaper.
You don't have to understand my preferences. All you need to do is try to respect my right to decide for myself what is best for me. Thinking you have a superior answer for my life after reading a couple of comments by me on the Internet and saying I should move to another country because you don't understand my choices is beyond insulting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are also many areas zoned for a maximum height of zero feet. The smartass in me wants to say, "then build subterranean homes/buildings" :) Would suck in terms of natural lighting but it would be nice to see the faces of people who want those zones to be like that.
People would rent subterranean apartments in Silicon Valley.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if anyone's asked those poor people what they want. I've seen a few commenters here suggesting using government money to ship 'em out, or retrain or job-place them, but I wonder: what do the poor in Silicon Valley want for their lives? Do they want to be shipped out? To be retrained? Better wages? Cheaper housing? These are people, after all, and are worthy of being involved in any discussion concerning thei…
The problem is that the "poor" people are asking the wrong question. They are asking, "why can't I afford to live where I grew up?" The question they should be asking is, "should I live where I grew up?"
What needs to be understood is that we cannot force the cost of living to drop, and we cannot force the median income to rise.
Either search for a job that pays more, or search for a home that costs less. If that means moving away from where you grew up, then sorry, but that's literally your best option.
Is it fair? No - but life isn't fair. If you find yourself living in a place that you cannot afford, then you are the problem, not the world around you. Fix your own life, because nobody is going to do it for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assuming government resources are needed to be spent to help resolve this, would they not be put to better use helping individuals relocate to somewhere sustainable (especially those who would be making a living wage elsewhere) than to subsidize the difference year after year?
Lets not forget that these people would be middle class anywhere else.