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

Data show rich cities are failing the Bay Area on housing

goldenstatswarrior.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 76 posts

Re: Data show rich cities are failing the Bay Area on housing

#51

Post by jariel »

ndiscussion wrote: post #35
supernova87a wrote: post #31

Well, I think you have 2 factors colliding together. 1) As people moved here and got good jobs, made a life for themselves, they (you and I) inevitably become more sympathetic to and desiring of middle class values. Stability, some measure of comfort, concern about taxation, their local neighborhood. It's understandable, it's natural. Yet this is in conflict (especially when growth needs to happen) with: 2) The peopl…

I think your analysis is spot-on. Those existing NIMBY's bought their house with an expectation, and they vote accordingly. I don't think there's really a way forward without torching rule of law. They don't want the place to be amenable to new/young people, and they make the rules. It's unfortunate that big tech decided to make this place their home, perhaps with covid and remote work it will go back to a dreamy boo…

"It's unfortunate that big tech decided to make this place their home"

Big Tech was established when much of that area was literally little bits separated by fields and farmland.

I think our living spaces are more important than industry, if we need more housing for Googlers etc. well, there's tons of room in Cali. There are even many areas amenable to more density, it's just not SF or Palo Alto.

I'll bet that in Oakland it's much more possible to build semi-high buildings and fairly dense, modern 4 story buildings for the middle class, it's just that fewer people want to live there.

I wonder if Apple and Google get together and bought a large plot of land south of Morgan Hill, they could build a mini city to house 500K people and frankly run the gauntlet of whatever they wanted in terms of setting the rules, and there are at least 500K migrants who'd be happy to live there.

Imagine 'Facebook Campus' but now, your home as well. What's Orwellian to you and I would probably be fine for others. And of course, less cynically, it wouldn't need to be like that either.

Re: Data show rich cities are failing the Bay Area on housing

#52

Post by Decade »

onethought wrote: post #25
d1zzy wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But at the same time, these cities, like Palo Alto, are building office space left and right and welcoming businesses into town. Because said cities cannot get enough tax money from property tax (blame Prop 13) so they need to get it from businesses. But then those businesses attract people in the area and then those people need a place to live in but they can't get a place because nobody has the incentive to sell…

As someone not familiar with Californian/SF local legal matters. What do they need the tax $ for if there aren't many residence?

It’s not just a California issue. Pretty much all of post-war (World War II) American development is functionally insolvent. Actually, not having enough residents per square mile is a leading driver of the need for more tax $.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3090385

Re: Data show rich cities are failing the Bay Area on housing

#53

Post by ndiscussion »

jariel wrote: post #51
ndiscussion wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your analysis is spot-on. Those existing NIMBY's bought their house with an expectation, and they vote accordingly. I don't think there's really a way forward without torching rule of law. They don't want the place to be amenable to new/young people, and they make the rules. It's unfortunate that big tech decided to make this place their home, perhaps with covid and remote work it will go back to a dreamy boo…

"It's unfortunate that big tech decided to make this place their home" Big Tech was established when much of that area was literally little bits separated by fields and farmland. I think our living spaces are more important than industry, if we need more housing for Googlers etc. well, there's tons of room in Cali. There are even many areas amenable to more density, it's just not SF or Palo Alto. I'll bet that in Oak…

I am surprised that they don't do just that.

But, they do something similar - they open offices in other cities until the cost of living rises to match San Francisco (see Portland and Seattle). It's just not in California.

Re: Data show rich cities are failing the Bay Area on housing

#54

Post by davidw »

ndiscussion wrote: post #46
davidw wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way forward is not to 'torch the rule of law'. There are plenty of ways to do things. Oregon just passed a housing law (HB 2001) that re-legalizes "missing middle" housing for instance, by right, in all our cities. In other words, you take some of the zoning control away from hyper-NIMBY local jurisdictions.

So "torch the will of local citizens" instead? Why should the rest of the state get to decide what they do in their neighborhoods? As long as you agree with the majority of the state, it works out for you, but it's a bold power grab that may not end well in other situations.

Larger political entities can consider more than the narrow, selfish interests of a few "I've got mine" NIMBYs, such as future residents, the racist history of zoning, and the impact on the environment of forcing people to commute a long ways.

Local control in places like Palo Alto is two wolves and a sheep voting for what to have for dinner.

Re: Data show rich cities are failing the Bay Area on housing

#55

Post by onethought »

ndiscussion wrote: post #46
davidw wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way forward is not to 'torch the rule of law'. There are plenty of ways to do things. Oregon just passed a housing law (HB 2001) that re-legalizes "missing middle" housing for instance, by right, in all our cities. In other words, you take some of the zoning control away from hyper-NIMBY local jurisdictions.

So "torch the will of local citizens" instead? Why should the rest of the state get to decide what they do in their neighborhoods? As long as you agree with the majority of the state, it works out for you, but it's a bold power grab that may not end well in other situations.

> as you agree with the majority of the state, it works out for you

So democracy?

Re: Data show rich cities are failing the Bay Area on housing

#56

Post by ndiscussion »

davidw wrote: post #54
ndiscussion wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So "torch the will of local citizens" instead? Why should the rest of the state get to decide what they do in their neighborhoods? As long as you agree with the majority of the state, it works out for you, but it's a bold power grab that may not end well in other situations.

Larger political entities can consider more than the narrow, selfish interests of a few "I've got mine" NIMBYs, such as future residents, the racist history of zoning, and the impact on the environment of forcing people to commute a long ways. Local control in places like Palo Alto is two wolves and a sheep voting for what to have for dinner.

Perhaps the new residents could consider moving literally anywhere else?

Re: Data show rich cities are failing the Bay Area on housing

#57

Post by ndiscussion »

satya71 wrote: post #47
supernova87a wrote: post #31

Well, I think you have 2 factors colliding together. 1) As people moved here and got good jobs, made a life for themselves, they (you and I) inevitably become more sympathetic to and desiring of middle class values. Stability, some measure of comfort, concern about taxation, their local neighborhood. It's understandable, it's natural. Yet this is in conflict (especially when growth needs to happen) with: 2) The peopl…

> The people who have not yet moved here (or become voters, or homeowners in particular), don't get to have a say in the policies that govern a place, yet at some point are the ones who have to live within policies that others decide. Same story for global warming. The current developed nations got rich (and still getting richer) by burning fossil fuels. But the ones that are trying to grow now are stuck. Four option…

It's a hot take but you seem truly interested and educated in this matter, have you ever read this?

http://editions-hache.com/essais/pdf/kaczynski2.pdf

Very depressing take on things, but ultimately I believe it proves that #1 is the only possibility. When it was written perhaps #2 was possible.

Re: Data show rich cities are failing the Bay Area on housing

#58

Post by davidw »

jseliger wrote: post #38
ralph84 wrote: post #7

> Rich communities should want to welcome more residents, particularly those less fortunate than them. Sadly, in the Bay Area, that doesn’t seem to be the case. Is that the case anywhere in the world? Why single out the Bay Area.

Yes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16704501

I'm particularly fond of this article showing different ways of accomplishing "more housing":

https://www.sightline.org/2017/09/21/yes-you-can-build-your-...

Re: Data show rich cities are failing the Bay Area on housing

#59

Post by davidw »

ndiscussion wrote: post #56
davidw wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Larger political entities can consider more than the narrow, selfish interests of a few "I've got mine" NIMBYs, such as future residents, the racist history of zoning, and the impact on the environment of forcing people to commute a long ways. Local control in places like Palo Alto is two wolves and a sheep voting for what to have for dinner.

Perhaps the new residents could consider moving literally anywhere else?

Some of us would like our children to be able to live in the place they are growing up. And we value what newcomers and immigrants bring to the table in terms of hard work, new ideas, energy, and so on.

Also, one of the easiest ways to make people better off is to let them move to where the jobs are. That used to be very common in the United States. That has been stunted in some part by rigid land use laws that pull up the ladder behind the people who got in while the getting was good.

There is a lot of work in economics showing the benefits of clustering, rather than having a talented up and coming person move to, say, Cyanide Springs Oklahoma because it's cheap.

Re: Data show rich cities are failing the Bay Area on housing

#60

Post by ndiscussion »

ndiscussion wrote: post #49
ralph84 wrote: post #7

> Rich communities should want to welcome more residents, particularly those less fortunate than them. Sadly, in the Bay Area, that doesn’t seem to be the case. Is that the case anywhere in the world? Why single out the Bay Area.

Because the residents are Bad(tm) and need to be punished. These standards only seem to apply to America and Europe. Does anyone have a counterexample outside of America or Europe where the underclass is allowed to live side-by-side with the rich? I've never heard of one but perhaps I'm ignorant. Most countries seem dead-set on rejecting any and all immigrants that don't bring $500k+ along with them.

So no counterexamples before my post turns to dust?
Post reply on HN