31–40 of 112 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If only people would move to other places when there's no space somewhere. Oh well.
No space? Yet I'm driving on 280 every morning and all I see are green fields. Yet 75% of San Francisco land has zoning rules that prevent buildings of more than 2 stories. What you really meant is: no space for you, I got mine
A lot of sentiment here around "housing is the root of all these problems", but isn't it also the problem of these companies creating offices in communities that can't support them? Given there are a lot of places that offices could be built that could support the employees, I think some of this responsibility lies with the companies who consciously keep their offices in locations that may cause their employees (not…
A lot of sentiment here around "housing is the root of all these problems", but isn't it also the problem of these companies creating offices in communities that can't support them? Given there are a lot of places that offices could be built that could support the employees, I think some of this responsibility lies with the companies who consciously keep their offices in locations that may cause their employees (not…
Then there's the serious question of where would the industry go? So many cities are so NIMBY controlled in this country (although SF is up there with the worst) that not many places are better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If only people would move to other places when there's no space somewhere. Oh well.
No space? Yet I'm driving on 280 every morning and all I see are green fields. Yet 75% of San Francisco land has zoning rules that prevent buildings of more than 2 stories. What you really meant is: no space for you, I got mine
The community can do something: * Build more housing. The tech companies can do something: * Build offices in more places That's it. That's the whole plan.
Local and state regulations have the housing market locked down. That leaves option B, and I really don't understand why more companies aren't doing that.
A lot of sentiment here around "housing is the root of all these problems", but isn't it also the problem of these companies creating offices in communities that can't support them? Given there are a lot of places that offices could be built that could support the employees, I think some of this responsibility lies with the companies who consciously keep their offices in locations that may cause their employees (not…
Companies put their offices in expensive cities because that’s where most of the people who work for them want to live. If Google decided to move their HQ to rural Kansas tomorrow, most of the company would quit overnight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"We will pretend to be a suburb in 1957 forever" —Mountain View and Palo Alto zoning board
Yup. As much as I love federalism here in the US, the housing crisis is directly caused by local NIMBY governments who refuse to accommodate housing needs. The only way I see this changing in the US (since it's afflicting every growing city), is some sort of federal subsidy for dense housing.
At least this way california loses residents to other states that dont have such regressive policies. What will change this in california is an economic crisis.
"Every increase in the real wealth of the society, every increase in the quantity of useful labour employed within it, tends indirectly to raise the real rent of land." -Adam Smith, "The Wealth Of Nations" Book I, XI. Of the Rent of Land, Conclusion https://www.bartleby.com/10/111.html
Henry George has better land value models. I truly believe california has it all wrong talking about housing: people asking for more construction don't understand what is going on when they campaign for that, and people that complaing about boards also dont understand it. California does not need housing reform, it needs tax reform.
https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search/?q=firefig...