Data show rich cities are failing the Bay Area on housing • Hacker News Board

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

#71

Post by supernova87a » Sat, Feb 06, 2021, 4:26 AM UTC

jariel wrote: post #64

km3r wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These selfish NIMBY assholes have been borrowing from their cities future as they both condemn newcomers, tax them extra (prop 13), refuse to build new housing for them, and then profit off the induced housing demand.

The selfish assholes that think they can tell people who live in other communities what those communities ought to be - are the the root of the problem. There are vast, open, free spaces for people to build and live in communities as they so choose. If people want to live in homes and not high rises, it's absolutely their choice, and visa versa. Anyone who wants to live among them, in homes, is free to do that. If th…

Are there situations where the people in control cannot even change the system if they wanted to, based on the interests that have been set up? And situations where a minority's interest in preserving the status quo prevent what could be an overall better situation for everyone else?

Also, this sounds a lot like, "As long as you're under my roof you'll follow my rules, young man". Which is not always reflective of a healthy situation.

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

#72

Post by supernova87a » Sat, Feb 06, 2021, 4:43 AM UTC

d1zzy wrote: post #61

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…

An interesting proposal I've seen that attempts to still save the retirees from being forced to move out for not paying their taxes vs houses locked at a certain rate for too long would be to recover the FMV rate owned taxes upon selling. Currently, not only does the existing homeowner have to pay less taxes (if prices increase over 2% YoY), but later when they sell their house they can cash in the entire difference.…

I heard this is done in some parts of Texas actually (?).

Property taxes go up in a more sane way, and if you can't afford it, you get it tacked on to the sale of your home at the end...

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

#73

Post by joe_the_user » Sat, Feb 06, 2021, 5:03 AM UTC

km3r wrote: post #36

joe_the_user wrote: post #14

I'd classify myself as a progressive and I don't see why every Bay Area city has to make some "contribution" to increased housing. An acceptable approach would seem to be to have the "center" becoming more dense over time while the outer rings stay less dense. The problem is that current geography has resulted in natural centers being the ones that refuse to build and that is problematic. Palo Alto and the rest are h…

The center is getting denser too though, its just not enough. You can only fit so much housing in SF. The suburb cities dont need to be filled will 20 story apartments, but every city should be building similar percent increases. SF/ oakland/ SJ are all building up and building lots of new units. Why does only the center have to take on the burden of becoming 10% more dense? Why can't every city increase its housing…

You can only fit so much housing in SF.

That's literally not true. Human density can go far beyond what SF has. In fact, you could fit a lot more people in SF with only part of the city getting higher density.

The idea that each city should "do it's part" has no basis in sane urban planing. We know the current distribution of density isn't useful and this more or less just makes it permanent.

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

#74

Post by ndiscussion » Sat, Feb 06, 2021, 2:00 PM UTC

supernova87a wrote: post #71

jariel wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The selfish assholes that think they can tell people who live in other communities what those communities ought to be - are the the root of the problem. There are vast, open, free spaces for people to build and live in communities as they so choose. If people want to live in homes and not high rises, it's absolutely their choice, and visa versa. Anyone who wants to live among them, in homes, is free to do that. If th…

Are there situations where the people in control cannot even change the system if they wanted to, based on the interests that have been set up? And situations where a minority's interest in preserving the status quo prevent what could be an overall better situation for everyone else? Also, this sounds a lot like, "As long as you're under my roof you'll follow my rules, young man". Which is not always reflective of a…

You generally have to be 18 to move to another city.

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

#75

Post by ndiscussion » Sat, Feb 06, 2021, 2:06 PM UTC

onethought wrote: post #69

ndiscussion wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glad to hear you live in a country like that, I wish I could say the same. But these are core difficulties with the United States that aren't going away any time soon. The nation is very divided and there's no hope of overthrowing first-past-the-post here. And when the nation doesn't agree on things, allowing the majority to rule can be terrifying.

That's not true, I'm quite certain a number of states have started removing first-past-the-post in favour of preferential systems. (Sorry I don't know the states nor what the term for the above is in the US). I agree democracy has its flaws... but what's the alternative? (This is highly off topic sorry). But complaining that minority rule to protect a "Happy Neighbourhood" is morally equivalent to "gay rights" seems…

My point is that these things can be morally ambiguous depending on the society you talk to. There are many places on earth that don't allow gay marriage to this day (or anything gay at all).

One of the main problems with democracy is that it incentives politicians to buy voters, rather than use principled judgment. Everything becomes "politicking" to the lowest common denominator, because they have the most votes, and are most influenced by emotion.

Every system has it's flaws, and ultimately, I believe the problem is the people, not the government. If people were more principled, they wouldn't be susceptible to this emotional rhetoric. Monarchies are not inherently unjust, although many of them have been.

One additional problem with democracy, at least in the US, is that it sells out to the highest bidder. The masses are easily manipulated with TV and other propaganda, and they are the ones who elect the winner. It's like an oligarchy - the politicans are beholden to big money.

But people blame the politicans, not the oligarchs. They vote out "bad" politicians, only for new puppets to take their place, protecting the true masters (business interests, wall street, etc).

In a true oligarchy, people eventually go for blood. It's a joke to think that the riots on Jan 6th would do anything - kill the puppets, and the puppeteer brings in a new prop.

If you find this topic interesting I highly recommend Plato's Republic available free: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1497

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

#76

Post by onethought » Sun, Feb 07, 2021, 3:04 AM UTC

ndiscussion wrote: post #75

onethought wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true, I'm quite certain a number of states have started removing first-past-the-post in favour of preferential systems. (Sorry I don't know the states nor what the term for the above is in the US). I agree democracy has its flaws... but what's the alternative? (This is highly off topic sorry). But complaining that minority rule to protect a "Happy Neighbourhood" is morally equivalent to "gay rights" seems…

My point is that these things can be morally ambiguous depending on the society you talk to. There are many places on earth that don't allow gay marriage to this day (or anything gay at all). One of the main problems with democracy is that it incentives politicians to buy voters, rather than use principled judgment. Everything becomes "politicking" to the lowest common denominator, because they have the most votes, a…

But effective democracy limits financing, which solves the buying votes problem.

Investment in education solves a lot of the manipulation problem.

You are Using one of the most dysfunctional democracies as your standard and then pointing out how bad that standard is. The US is a pathetic excuse for a democracy. It’s got some really great ideas that are stifled intentionally.

But you haven’t provided an alternative...

And back to the original point... you would like a monarch to rule The Bay Area?

Please don’t stop at Plato, Aristotle expanded on it and specifically made some key observations around democracy relating to “the wisdom of the masses”.