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

71–80 of 141 posts

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

#71

Post by myblake »

bsder wrote: post #38
wahsd wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you don't see to realize is that what you describe will be only a momentary and fleeing improvement. The problem is the irrational and unnecessary concentration of opportunities in that area. So you build more buildings, create a housing glut even ... so now even more people move to the area because it's the only place where opportunities exist because it's where the wealthy sprinkle crumbs to their pest scurryi…

> The problem is the irrational and unnecessary concentration of opportunities in that area. The concentration is not irrational. That's the problem. The concentration is driven by the fact that you will , not might, get laid off at some point if your job is in the tech sector. So, what happens is that everybody thinks about where their next job is going to be while getting hired for their current job. If I somehow m…

Yeah having lived (and worked in tech) in both Austin and SF, there's really no comparison as far as the number of opportunities here as well as the breadth. It's absolutely not irrational that people want to live in the Bay Area, that's the problem.

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

#72

Post by pbreit »

wahsd wrote: post #25
mc32 wrote: post #6

I hope she wins. I hope other people see her insight. I have not seen this kind of attitude against development in other countries. Sure, some speculators will make out on some locations near transit,and some will lose out a bit. Who cares, what we need are more units, in SF, down the Camino corridor from SF to san Jose. Build up, have BART go all the way down the el cam, and have local Surface-bahns. I'm tired of th…

What you don't see to realize is that what you describe will be only a momentary and fleeing improvement. The problem is the irrational and unnecessary concentration of opportunities in that area. So you build more buildings, create a housing glut even ... so now even more people move to the area because it's the only place where opportunities exist because it's where the wealthy sprinkle crumbs to their pest scurryi…

Again, you make lousy points but probably not downvotable points.

The Bay Area has a major tax disadvantage in prop 13. San Francisco is perhaps the highest taxed city in the USA.

If a geographical area is just slightly more appealing than another area, you would expect people to migrate there. So I'm not really sure why you think the concentration is irrational. It's really the opposite.

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

#73

Post by myblake »

mc32 wrote: post #6

I hope she wins. I hope other people see her insight. I have not seen this kind of attitude against development in other countries. Sure, some speculators will make out on some locations near transit,and some will lose out a bit. Who cares, what we need are more units, in SF, down the Camino corridor from SF to san Jose. Build up, have BART go all the way down the el cam, and have local Surface-bahns. I'm tired of th…

I do too but I wonder if Lafeyette is as much to blame as say Mountain View. While they're almost certainly not building new housing as fast as the area population grows, it's not clear that they're building office space instead, whereas many of the communities in the South Bay are doing just that. Still, it sounds like this is meant to be a more general attempt at proving the concept.

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

#74

Post by rodgerd »

hueving wrote: post #32
vasilipupkin wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

'character' is just code for 'I don't want to share' or even worse 'I bought in and if we make more housing, my price won't go up as much'

> 'character' is just code for 'I don't want to share'

Nonsense. I don't live in San Fran, I do live in a city whose character has changed. I don't mind that people saw the cool inner city and wanted to share. I do mind that developer put up cheap high-rises with shit sound insulation, and then waged war on music venues, getting most of them shut down. I do mind that rents escalate massively year-on-year so that the hitherto broad range of inhabitants have steadily whittled down to a richer and richer (and frankly less interesting) rump. I do mind that many landlords would apparently rather see an empty shopfront than an interesting store that's no longer viable because apparently the thing to do is year-on-year 30% rent rises.

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

#75

Post by refurb »

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…

SF-style widepsread rent control seems like part of the problem to me

You raise a good question. What would rent in SF look like without rent control?

Thinking through the process, I imagine something like:

1. Rent for everyone would have gone up over time

2. Renters would have been slowly forced out as rent increases exceeded their incomes

3. However, it's likely that there would have been a lot more units opening up over time. That likely would have slowed the increase in rent.

I'm certainly not saying that a "no rent control" situation would be ideal, but I'm wondering if it's just made the rent situation in SF much worse than it would have been otherwise.

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

#76

Post by rodgerd »

mc32 wrote: post #6

I hope she wins. I hope other people see her insight. I have not seen this kind of attitude against development in other countries. Sure, some speculators will make out on some locations near transit,and some will lose out a bit. Who cares, what we need are more units, in SF, down the Camino corridor from SF to san Jose. Build up, have BART go all the way down the el cam, and have local Surface-bahns. I'm tired of th…

> From communist china to capitalist Korea, when housing is in short supply, buildings go up.

That's great if it results in housing becoming more affordable. People are putting up housing to sell/rent at newer, higher prices. This achieves nothing for anyone except the person turning a profit.

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

#77

Post by megablast »

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.

Ok, all good points.

The other side is that they moved into a neighborhood that has a certain number of houses in it, and parks. And they of course want it the same as what they paid for.

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

#78

Post by megablast »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #34
hugh4 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Then I would have bought a different home, for slightly more money" But what if there had been no houses built here at all? "Then I guess I'd live somewhere else"

Cool, so when are you moving? (only half kidding) But that is the right answer right? Once they admit they have the flexibility of living anywhere they want then they should exercise that power if the city council votes in ways they don't like right? I get that it is a very complex patina of things that make up change, and when you have lived somewhere 20 years to have it change inexorably makes you feel powerless, b…

> Cool, so when are you moving?

When someone goes back in time and convinces the dev not to make the house.

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

#79

Post by kevinchen »

rodgerd wrote: post #76
mc32 wrote: post #6

I hope she wins. I hope other people see her insight. I have not seen this kind of attitude against development in other countries. Sure, some speculators will make out on some locations near transit,and some will lose out a bit. Who cares, what we need are more units, in SF, down the Camino corridor from SF to san Jose. Build up, have BART go all the way down the el cam, and have local Surface-bahns. I'm tired of th…

> From communist china to capitalist Korea, when housing is in short supply, buildings go up. That's great if it results in housing becoming more affordable. People are putting up housing to sell/rent at newer, higher prices. This achieves nothing for anyone except the person turning a profit.

> People are putting up housing to sell/rent at newer, higher prices

Every high-income tech worker living in an expensive new apartment someone who's not competing for existing housing and driving their prices up.

It doesn't "achieve nothing," it's "how markets work."

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

#80

Post by fixermark »

megablast wrote: post #77
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.

Ok, all good points. The other side is that they moved into a neighborhood that has a certain number of houses in it, and parks. And they of course want it the same as what they paid for.

The assumption that a neighborhood will not change over 10, 20, 30 years is never an economically-wise assumption.
Post reply on HN