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

Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

grist.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 141 posts

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#41

Post by gozo »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #5
jinushaun wrote: post #3

Love this quote: “Most people would be very uncomfortable tearing down 315 houses. But they don’t have a similar objection to never building them in the first place, even though I feel they’re morally equivalent. Those people show up anyway. They get born anyway. They get a job in the area anyway. What do they do? They live in an overcrowded situation, they pay too much rent, they have a commute that’s too long. Or m…

I was coming to say the same thing. I think this is a good question to ask of the folks who object to building homes, "What if the people who lived in this town before you moved here had blocked the building of the home you are living in?" You wouldn't have had that wonderful experience you are trying to preserve because you would never have lived here." It is very sobering.

I think people are quite aware of that line of thinking. Most people who live in slightly unpopular areas live there because they couldn't afford other places and now when the area has become more desirable they fear being pushed out. This is an especially legitimate concern if you are renting, since building might very well rise demand more than it does supply.

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#42

Post by [deleted] »

hugh4 wrote: post #9
jinushaun wrote: post #3

Love this quote: “Most people would be very uncomfortable tearing down 315 houses. But they don’t have a similar objection to never building them in the first place, even though I feel they’re morally equivalent. Those people show up anyway. They get born anyway. They get a job in the area anyway. What do they do? They live in an overcrowded situation, they pay too much rent, they have a commute that’s too long. Or m…

That's a rather odd perspective. Does this person also view murder as morally equivalent to contraception?

[deleted]

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#43

Post by kbenson »

vasilipupkin wrote: post #27
x0x0 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in an sf suburb. I talk to local homeowners in the dog park at night and they're all wildly opposed to density, often with a nice core of racism too (I'm white so white people say some wild shit to me; you hear references to "those people" and it's not that deeply coded.) The only thing that cheers me about all the nimbys where I live is all their kids are getting kicked out. Seriously. In 20 years when their…

it's not irrational to be opposed to density. Racism aside, density changes the character of the neighborhood and potentially lowers property values of existing homeowners. So, it's not surprising people are apprehensive

I don't know why you are being downvoted,what you stated is fairly uncontroversial and easily supported. Perhaps people are assuming some stance or approval of that from your words.

It is rational behavior to protect your investments and way of life in this manner. I think it's often short-term rationalization, and acting on bad information, but people are acting in a rational manner given their information and circumstances. Given that, it's probably good to address the base of that rationalization, rather than expect them to behave differently. I.e. give them more information that makes their prior behavior no longer the clearly beneficial choice for them, if such information exists. Play upon their sense of justice and ideals (such as ChuckMcM is). etc.

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#44

Post by erispoe »

gavazzy wrote: post #12

Is she suggesting that land be taken through eminent domain? Or is she merely suggesting that developers who own land should be allowed to build on it? Their DSP proposal is so clouded by the political language that it is difficult to determine their true intentions. Also, I'm quite troubled by their suggestion that tearing down homes is morally equivalent to not building them in the first place. Tearing down homes i…

Tearing down homes doesn't necessarily destroy value. It increases the value of other properties, because you have less supply and more demand. This is exactly the equivalent of not building while demand goes balistic. The price of homes has gone crazy in the Bay Area as a result of not allowing enough building.

You don't need eminent domain, and SFBARF is not advocating for it. The project they are suing the City of Lafayette for was entirely private: willing landowner, willing developer, and most likely a lot of potential buyers or renters in a tense market. But no, the City of Lafayette decided to approve on condition of a drastically reduced number of housing.

She is advocating that landowners and developers be allowed to build to meet market demand, without obstruction from nimby neighbors.

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#45

Post by musesum »

zyxley wrote: post #8
musesum wrote: post #4

Here's Scott Wiener's post about meeting 2040 housing growth plans: https://medium.com/@Scott_Wiener/want-to-know-why-the-bay-ar... Looks like East bay is falling behind schedule. Here's housing prices since crash peek: http://west.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/hugolefebvre-ch... I live several doors down from the old KFC. I miss the old Sugoi Sushi that was there - but am fine with the new construction. Am lucky…

> Am lucky to have rent control. Right now, if I move away, I wouldn't be able to afford moving back. SF-style widepsread rent control seems like part of the problem to me, in the sense that it hides the true extent of market distortions from many people living in the area (especially the demographics most likely to vote), while incentivizing weird and unethical behavior to circumvent it by developers who could proba…

Owners have an incentive to keep supply low and to maximize the value of their asset. Next, add AirBnB to add yet more demand. Crazy is the new normal.

Homeowner associations organize the vote during off-election years, as per http://techcrunch.com/2014/11/02/so-you-want-to-fix-the-hous...

Removing rent-control would accelerate the displacement. A friend saw his rent nearly triple in 1999. So, he moved back to a more affordable Paris. He was developing a super cool visual-music platform. A neighbor is developing really cool music apps for the iPad. I am doing iOS based art tools. GAFFTA is in the neighborhood. There are advantages to encouraging a cultural mix.

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#46

Post by pbreit »

jinushaun wrote: post #3

Love this quote: “Most people would be very uncomfortable tearing down 315 houses. But they don’t have a similar objection to never building them in the first place, even though I feel they’re morally equivalent. Those people show up anyway. They get born anyway. They get a job in the area anyway. What do they do? They live in an overcrowded situation, they pay too much rent, they have a commute that’s too long. Or m…

Sorry, but destroying something and not building something are not even slightly morally equivalent. And that's the problem with some activists: they are so far removed from common sense.

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#47

Post by epistasis »

tmorton wrote: post #36
wahsd wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, that's nonsense. The problem not only in the bay area is the irrational and unnecessary concentration of people. It is quite unsettling to me that just because some people don't like what you do on or with your private property that you feel entitled to impose yourself and your will upon them. It's really a kind of liberal tyranny that is not only sweeping this country but it seems at least the western world.…

The downvotes here are really inappropriate. I disagree with most of this comment, but it's well up to the standards of political discourse on HN.

Nonsense, it's just inflammatory language unbound by facts, it should never have been posted.

> It's really a kind of liberal tyranny...

>I bet that if the government had not or would cut off the economic centers in the country from government spending

>...only perversion of a manipulated, mutated, and distorted market due to the spike in oil prices...

>...authoritarian dicks???

These are not the ramblings of one based in reality or the basis for a reasonable discussion.

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#48

Post by freehunter »

tmorton wrote: post #36
wahsd wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, that's nonsense. The problem not only in the bay area is the irrational and unnecessary concentration of people. It is quite unsettling to me that just because some people don't like what you do on or with your private property that you feel entitled to impose yourself and your will upon them. It's really a kind of liberal tyranny that is not only sweeping this country but it seems at least the western world.…

The downvotes here are really inappropriate. I disagree with most of this comment, but it's well up to the standards of political discourse on HN.

Is it? Just because it's political and long-winded doesn't mean it's quality. He doesn't even have a point. "Rah, filthy liberals and poor drones trying to live in the city where they have jobs, rah fight against big government imposing its control over you, oh by the way you should vote for a socialist."

Does that make any sense? It's the pointless rambling of someone who wants to use the government to force you to stop using the government to force him to do something he doesn't want to do. It boils down to "the government should stop letting poor people vote". Pure nonsense.

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#49

Post by nulltype »

musesum wrote: post #4

Here's Scott Wiener's post about meeting 2040 housing growth plans: https://medium.com/@Scott_Wiener/want-to-know-why-the-bay-ar... Looks like East bay is falling behind schedule. Here's housing prices since crash peek: http://west.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/hugolefebvre-ch... I live several doors down from the old KFC. I miss the old Sugoi Sushi that was there - but am fine with the new construction. Am lucky…

So there's a map of SF meeting its housing goal. What is the goal and how is it set? According to these graphs of housing stock vs population: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2015/02/04/sfs_population_is_g... the goal for SF may need to be pretty high.
Post reply on HN