5 ms·

I have a friend whose parents own three houses in SF. When I asked about the rapidly increasing cost of rent and how it's driving people out, he told me, parap

I have a friend whose parents own three houses in SF. When I asked about the rapidly increasing cost of rent and how it's driving people out, he told me, paraphrasing, "People don't have a right to live in San Francisco." Another way of saying that you should only live there if you can afford it. Needless to say, I'm inclined to believe that NIMBY's cannot be reasoned with.

orangecat 11y ago
"People don't have a right to live in San Francisco." Which is true, although the flip side is that people shouldn't have the right to prevent others from building new housing. At least not for reasons like "it might cause my property value to stop wildly increasing".
- geebee 11y ago
  I can't speak for everyone, and this is just my personal experience. I grew up in SF, and I haven't seen this sinister quality in people who oppose density. I disagree with them, I'd like to see SF add more density, but my impression is that most of the old timers in SF oppose new development because they are resistant to change and highly suspicious of developers, not because they want to create shortages and spike the value of their property. In short, at the extreme, the school teacher or SF state professor who was able to support a family and buy a 4 bedroom house in the sunset in 1975 wants the new professor in 2016 to be able to buy a a 4 bedroom house in SF and support a family, and is unhappy that this is no longer possible. They also tend to believe, rightly or wrongly, that "density" would just mean lots of high end expensive apartments that nobody in the "middle class" can afford. In short (and again, I'm guessing), they are very cynical, perhaps irrationally so, about what development will do. There are, of course, some pretty horrendous examples of redevelopment projects and so forth in SF. I know, you're already reaching for the keyboard to explain the difference, but you'd be preaching to the choir here. I'm just trying to explain why it's not really a desire to maximize the value of a real estate asset that drives so much of opposition to new housing and development. The whole thing has a very bad reputation in SF. There is such a thing as YIMBY in San Francisco, often people who have seen their friends and children priced out.
  - makomk 11y ago
    They're probably right to be cynical. Housing developers want to make as much money as possible, which means that they prefer to build stuff that sells at a premium price - ideally, at a mark-up to the existing older property that it's competing with. Rather hard to drive down prices that way.
  - tamana 11y ago
    If you are stepping on my toes and refuse to step off, I don't care whether you are being evil or irrational, you are still perpetuating an injustice
    - hitekker 11y ago
      Agreed. Although My friend is a nice guy and his folks are nice people, a lack of empathy invariably forms the basis of passive cruelty. Not empathy as in "let's forgive everyone for everything", but "let me honestly consider your point of view even it may conflict with the way I'm supporting myself". This is, of course, generally impossible for most people, including myself, since it takes a great deal of mental and financial security to weather that kind of introspection.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - iiiggglll 11y ago
    > They also tend to believe, rightly or wrongly, that "density" would just mean lots of high end expensive apartments that nobody in the "middle class" can afford. That would be wrongly. Supply and demand are real. The fact that SF is now more expensive that NYC proves it. Restrict supply long enough, and prices will go up. People who refuse to believe in simple, verifiable facts deserve what they get, "sinister" or not.
    - geebee 11y ago
      Part of the problem, though, is that they don't get what they "deserve." I'm a little hesitant to get into what "deserve" means, but I would agree that people who oppose new housing often don't experience the consequences. Because of prop 13, property owners are largely insulated from the downside of a sudden spike in housing prices, and because their new neighbors pay far more in taxes, they get to enjoy a higher tax base without contributing to it. Renters are more vulnerable. Rent control laws are strict in San Francisco, but people who lose their rent controlled apartment after decades are pretty much hosed. It's a risky gamble that works out for some, but not all. Many renters feel they never had the means to get into the housing market, not then, not now, so this gamble wasn't really a choice. This seems to have caused renters and tenants groups to double down on rent control rather than agitate for an increase in supply. Again, this is probably because they perceive new development as catering to the very wealthy.
- hitekker 11y ago
  While true, it also highly dismissive of structural problems which you have noted. The subtext with this line, whenever I hear it, is essentially "this city is for rich people only." The "needless to say" bit was on the presumption that SF should not try to imitate Dubai.
mtviewdave 11y ago
Did your friend's parents tell you outright they were against the building of new housing? From what you've written it seems you've inferred that they are, but their opinion (as you've portrayed it) is as compatible with a pro-growth position as anti-growth.
archagon 11y ago
I have no problem with this point of view. Highrises will likely ruin the beauty and quaintness of some of SF's neighborhoods in an irrevertable way. There's also zero chance that average rental prices would go down in the short term, if ever: the market is too lucrative and there are plenty of rich people to fill all available slots. On the other hand, if there's little new development, maybe people would finally leave SF alone after a while and go somewhere else. (Or if the tech bubble bursts again.) I think what these people mean is not that SF belongs to the rich, but that arrogant startup kids have no right to reshape a city that's been theirs for decades, just because said kids really, really want to live there. I've been to many cities around the world that are practically defined by their lovely architecture, their comfortable streets, and their astounding views. Were I living in one of those cities during a tech boom, I would fight tooth and nail to prevent ugly highrises from taking over the skyline. There's no ethical mandate to permanently keep growing. (Caveat: I don't actually like SF all that much, but I totally understand where this mindset comes from.)

orangecat 11y ago

"People don't have a right to live in San Francisco." Which is true, although the flip side is that people shouldn't have the right to prevent others from building new housing. At least not for reasons like "it might cause my property value to stop wildly increasing".

geebee 11y ago
I can't speak for everyone, and this is just my personal experience. I grew up in SF, and I haven't seen this sinister quality in people who oppose density. I disagree with them, I'd like to see SF add more density, but my impression is that most of the old timers in SF oppose new development because they are resistant to change and highly suspicious of developers, not because they want to create shortages and spike the value of their property. In short, at the extreme, the school teacher or SF state professor who was able to support a family and buy a 4 bedroom house in the sunset in 1975 wants the new professor in 2016 to be able to buy a a 4 bedroom house in SF and support a family, and is unhappy that this is no longer possible. They also tend to believe, rightly or wrongly, that "density" would just mean lots of high end expensive apartments that nobody in the "middle class" can afford. In short (and again, I'm guessing), they are very cynical, perhaps irrationally so, about what development will do. There are, of course, some pretty horrendous examples of redevelopment projects and so forth in SF. I know, you're already reaching for the keyboard to explain the difference, but you'd be preaching to the choir here. I'm just trying to explain why it's not really a desire to maximize the value of a real estate asset that drives so much of opposition to new housing and development. The whole thing has a very bad reputation in SF. There is such a thing as YIMBY in San Francisco, often people who have seen their friends and children priced out.
- makomk 11y ago
  They're probably right to be cynical. Housing developers want to make as much money as possible, which means that they prefer to build stuff that sells at a premium price - ideally, at a mark-up to the existing older property that it's competing with. Rather hard to drive down prices that way.
- tamana 11y ago
  If you are stepping on my toes and refuse to step off, I don't care whether you are being evil or irrational, you are still perpetuating an injustice
  - hitekker 11y ago
    Agreed. Although My friend is a nice guy and his folks are nice people, a lack of empathy invariably forms the basis of passive cruelty. Not empathy as in "let's forgive everyone for everything", but "let me honestly consider your point of view even it may conflict with the way I'm supporting myself". This is, of course, generally impossible for most people, including myself, since it takes a great deal of mental and financial security to weather that kind of introspection.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- iiiggglll 11y ago
  > They also tend to believe, rightly or wrongly, that "density" would just mean lots of high end expensive apartments that nobody in the "middle class" can afford. That would be wrongly. Supply and demand are real. The fact that SF is now more expensive that NYC proves it. Restrict supply long enough, and prices will go up. People who refuse to believe in simple, verifiable facts deserve what they get, "sinister" or not.
  - geebee 11y ago
    Part of the problem, though, is that they don't get what they "deserve." I'm a little hesitant to get into what "deserve" means, but I would agree that people who oppose new housing often don't experience the consequences. Because of prop 13, property owners are largely insulated from the downside of a sudden spike in housing prices, and because their new neighbors pay far more in taxes, they get to enjoy a higher tax base without contributing to it. Renters are more vulnerable. Rent control laws are strict in San Francisco, but people who lose their rent controlled apartment after decades are pretty much hosed. It's a risky gamble that works out for some, but not all. Many renters feel they never had the means to get into the housing market, not then, not now, so this gamble wasn't really a choice. This seems to have caused renters and tenants groups to double down on rent control rather than agitate for an increase in supply. Again, this is probably because they perceive new development as catering to the very wealthy.
hitekker 11y ago
While true, it also highly dismissive of structural problems which you have noted. The subtext with this line, whenever I hear it, is essentially "this city is for rich people only." The "needless to say" bit was on the presumption that SF should not try to imitate Dubai.

mtviewdave 11y ago

Did your friend's parents tell you outright they were against the building of new housing? From what you've written it seems you've inferred that they are, but their opinion (as you've portrayed it) is as compatible with a pro-growth position as anti-growth.

archagon 11y ago

I have no problem with this point of view. Highrises will likely ruin the beauty and quaintness of some of SF's neighborhoods in an irrevertable way. There's also zero chance that average rental prices would go down in the short term, if ever: the market is too lucrative and there are plenty of rich people to fill all available slots. On the other hand, if there's little new development, maybe people would finally leave SF alone after a while and go somewhere else. (Or if the tech bubble bursts again.) I think what these people mean is not that SF belongs to the rich, but that arrogant startup kids have no right to reshape a city that's been theirs for decades, just because said kids really, really want to live there. I've been to many cities around the world that are practically defined by their lovely architecture, their comfortable streets, and their astounding views. Were I living in one of those cities during a tech boom, I would fight tooth and nail to prevent ugly highrises from taking over the skyline. There's no ethical mandate to permanently keep growing. (Caveat: I don't actually like SF all that much, but I totally understand where this mindset comes from.)