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

61–70 of 141 posts

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

#61

Post by nommm-nommm »

fche wrote: post #17
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." You are (party to) using the state to withhold justly earned economic value from your landlord.

Renting an apartment isn't the same as buying an iPad. Having a safe place to lay your head at night is something our society has determined extremely important bordering on essential. Housing rentals are highly regulated due (mostly) to this fact.

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

#62

Post by SonjaKT »

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…

Also, what is "DSP proposal"?

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

#63

Post by pbreit »

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.

If someone didn't build your house, you'd go find another house! How is that sobering?

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

#65

Post by CapitalistCartr »

pbreit wrote: post #63
ChuckMcM wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If someone didn't build your house, you'd go find another house! How is that sobering?

You're missing the point. If you "found another house", you would displace someone else. Restricting housing below demand is playing musical chairs with homes.

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

#66

Post by pbreit »

brudgers wrote: post #40
ChuckMcM wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In general [1], people who hate developers and/or development live, work, shop, and worship in places developed by developers. Someone subdivided and sold the land. The infrastructure of deeds, insurance and mortgages that makes the contemporary housing markets possible exists because development has and continues to take place. [1]: In the United States.

That's not my experience at all. I would suggest it's the opposite.

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

#67

Post by musesum »

simoncion wrote: post #57
zyxley wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> ...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... musesum mentions: > Am lucky to have rent control. Right now, if I move away, I wouldn't be able to afford moving back. Everyone I speak to in my building [0] is very aware of the current ludicrously high rents in the city and how it limits their ability to ke…

Wow, I didn't realize there was a 1979 cutoff. Glad to know there's a perk to this oven/icebox victorian.

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

#68

Post by pbreit »

x0x0 wrote: post #10
ChuckMcM wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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…

What's your point? The parents could transfer the home to the kids. Or they could sell it for top dollar and help their kids out financially. And perhaps the kids might need to live a few towns over where it's not quite as expensive. I don't really understand what your point is.

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

#69

Post by pbreit »

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 think what you want to say is: it's rational to be opposed to density.

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

#70

Post by pbreit »

wahsd wrote: post #18
ChuckMcM wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.…

I don't really understand your whole post but am also not sure it merits down voting.

Where I think you're wrong is with respect to concentration of people/activity/opportunity. It is quite natural for such concentrations to occur and certainly far from irrational.

Post reply on HN