In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build • Hacker News Board

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#361

Post by warfangle » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 3:45 PM UTC

freyr wrote: post #207

skewart wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the comment section on that article is pretty sad. The number of people whose argument against building more housing is a fear that it will make the city "ugly" is astounding. It's mind-numbingly selfish and greedy to think that a family should barely be able to make ends meet, and children should spend less time with their long-commuting parents, just so that SF can meet your personal aesthetic sensibilities.…

On the one hand, you have established residents pushing back against expansion, construction, and denser housing -- perhaps to preserve what they value in their community, or perhaps out of personal interest and to drive up their property values. On the other, you have a massive influx of tech workers who have convinced themselves that they must live in this small, overpriced city for their basic livelihood, and that…

If you're going by incorporated municiple.... SF is something like 21 on the list.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#362

Post by warfangle » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 3:50 PM UTC

davidf18 wrote: post #195

rconti wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well absolutely. And one commenter there (or here) mentioned the negative externalities of someone else's development driving down your property values or making your schools overcrowded or whatever. All of these things are deserving of sympathy and consideration, but.. well, currently they're getting too much of it.

Actually, because of the "rent seeking" of using politics to artificially constrain supply creating artificial scarcity, their property is valued much more than it should be valued without the market inefficiency. So, yes, their property values will fall because they were artificially inflated. The same happened to NYC Taxi Medallion owners where each medallion had a market value of $1.2 million because of the artifi…

Wasn't just uber and lyft, the outer borough taxis steppd up their game after they were allowed to pick up street hails (but not in Manhattan).

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#363

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 3:54 PM UTC

aninhumer wrote: post #355

Houshalter wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well we do have a property system so what are you trying to say?

That expecting there to be "your stuff" is already inherently selfish, so trying to argue that particular reallocations of "your stuff" are selfish is kind of ridiculous.

[deleted]

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#364

Post by warfangle » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 3:55 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #201

skewart wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the comment section on that article is pretty sad. The number of people whose argument against building more housing is a fear that it will make the city "ugly" is astounding. It's mind-numbingly selfish and greedy to think that a family should barely be able to make ends meet, and children should spend less time with their long-commuting parents, just so that SF can meet your personal aesthetic sensibilities.…

There are two things that continually surprise me about life in the modern, Internet-enabled age... two things that I would never have dreamed would happen, if you'd asked the 1996 version of me what American life would be like in 2016. One is our increasing indulgence in irrationality, to the extent that we almost celebrate it. I would never have guessed that hard-right social conservatism would still be a dominant…

But ugh. Suburbs and driving.

If there was a light rail to an urban center and I could get my daily/weekly errands done via walking or cycling, sure.

But the car centric culture of, well, just about everywhere is IMHO grosser than an "urban prison"

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#365

Post by brbsix » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 4:04 PM UTC

aninhumer wrote: post #318

brbsix wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd expect property owners to be entitled to build on their titled property, yet somehow this has turned into a pejorative. It reminds me of people arguing for higher taxes accusing others of being selfish. Yes, it's completely selfish that someone would like to keep the money they've earned and yet completely selfless that you feel you have a right to it. Down and down we go into opposite land.

> Yes, it's completely selfish that someone would like to keep the money they've earned Well yeah. The very concept of ownership is inherently selfish. It means you want there to be a particular set of resources you get to use, and no one else. It's pretty much the definition of selfishness. Not that I think this is a bad thing, but if you're trying to argue with this particular rhetorical framing, you're going to lo…

Taken to this extreme (wherein private property is selfish), human life is selfish. In living, you consume resources that no one else can use. As such, arguing that reallocation of your life (e.g. your death or enslavement) is selfish would be ridiculous.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#366

Post by Balgair » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 5:27 PM UTC

rconti wrote: post #140

The Times selected as an "NYTimes Pick" a comment from someone in Berlin who absolutely makes my blood boil. (S)he starts off by stating privilege as a 5th-generation San Franciscan (obviously, the kind who DESERVE to live in the city), and who fled in the tech boom of the 90s. The usual rant about whitewashing and yuppies and artists being pushed out ensues. Of course they don't want more housing built, because then…

As a 3rd generation San Fransiscan, San Fransisco is a dirty two-fisted drinking town, full stop. We are the descendants of the leftover dregs of society, the junk drawer of mankind. We are used batteries, bent paperclips, lint, and stripped out rusty screws. Any illusions to art havens are from the last batch of transplants. Romanticism is borne of a head injury to your hippocampus. This city is for the losers and weirdos, the people that can't fit in; hence the gays. That's not a paen to some crappy apple ad about being different. We are not liked by society, we are scoundrels and assholes, drunks and drug runners, we are the fags and chinks and every other horrible name. We are left alone. And now the transplants from the last wave of the hippies and the techys think this place is theirs now. Nice try. You aren't reviled enough yet. When everyone else turns you down, then you come to SF and can talk about your new home. Hell, have a beer.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#367

Post by Houshalter » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 5:31 PM UTC

aninhumer wrote: post #355

Houshalter wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well we do have a property system so what are you trying to say?

That expecting there to be "your stuff" is already inherently selfish, so trying to argue that particular reallocations of "your stuff" are selfish is kind of ridiculous.

And now we are back where we started, with why is it selfish for me to claim it, but not you? Without property rights, no one has any right to anything and the world would be anarchy.

There is nothing selfish about property rights. If you make something, and want to use it, that's not selfish. If someone else comes and demands you give it to them instead, that is selfish.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#368

Post by Houshalter » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 5:38 PM UTC

freyr wrote: post #343

Houshalter wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man "entitlement" is such a weird word, and such a weird way to frame the issue. There are property owners who would like to build on their own property, not hurting anyone. And being told they're not allowed to because rich people like the aesthetic. There's poor people being priced out of their own city because of this. Who's entitled? And this is hardly the first time a US city has experienced growth.

If someone pays $X million for a house in San Francisco with a view, you can assume it will hurt when an affordable-living highrise is constructed next door that blocks their view. Now, perhaps the happiness of the people who live in that highrise and get a spectacular view at a government-mandated affordable price outweighs the pain of the individual who paid market price. But somebody got hurt.

I argued below that "ownership of a view" is a dubious claim. Taken too far and it amounts to no one being allowed to build anything, anywhere. Which sadly has become the norm in most places, see NIMBYism.

I'd be willing to consider a compromise where developers compensate neighbors for whatever market value is lost from their construction. That seems fair. But even that assumes that the owners had a "right" to the view to begin with, or some kind of ownership over it. Which seems kind of absurd.

It also assumes that new development necessarily hurts property values, which isn't true either. Development usually increases the value.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#369

Post by Noos » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 6:13 PM UTC

bluthru wrote: post #342

CamperBob2 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two things that continually surprise me about life in the modern, Internet-enabled age... two things that I would never have dreamed would happen, if you'd asked the 1996 version of me what American life would be like in 2016. One is our increasing indulgence in irrationality, to the extent that we almost celebrate it. I would never have guessed that hard-right social conservatism would still be a dominant…

>finally going to liberate us from crowded, noisy, polluted urban prisons What are you, a suburban developer from the 50's? Urban areas often provide a higher quality of life than The Geography of Nowhere. Do some introductory research into urban design. Read some Jane Jacobs. You thought the human desire for community and activity was just going to leave?

They only do so for a specific type of person, who is happy externalizing and surrendering ownership. It is too expensive to own a workshop, so you go to a makerspace. You do not have land to have your own garden, so you go to a communal one. If you feel the desire to see nature, public park. To entertain, bars in stead of your own dwelling. You cannot transport yourself beyond walking distance, you rely on communal transport. In Japan, even bathing, quiet studying and reading, and practice for activities must be externalized.

To be uncharitable, urban areas are perfect for housing worker drones bereft of ownership rights.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#370

Post by willholloway » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 6:36 PM UTC

nugget wrote: post #349

willholloway wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not wrong. Any developer for example that can find remote work can benefit from the plummeting real estate costs to be found in any of the areas that have seen an outflow of people in search of work in urban areas. There are countless communities across the US that are aging, as the youth have moved to the metropolis to work. Anyone that can extract money from the internet can benefit from this trend. Couple t…

What cities or towns would you put at the top of this list?

Southeastern CT is cheap, and well located, in my opinion.

You can buy a house in walking distance to the decent downtown of Westerly, RI for 120,000 and hop on an Amtrak train and be in Manhattan in 3 hours.

And if you like sailing, there are some great harbors here, like Mystic.

There are plenty of places to adventure to, Block Island, Nantucket, Martha's Vinyard, Cape Cod.