3 ms·

Housing and the homeless topics keep coming up on HN and in my social circles. It's frustrating. My real frustration is in fact with our cities are incentivizi

Housing and the homeless topics keep coming up on HN and in my social circles. It's frustrating. My real frustration is in fact with our cities are incentivizing businesses to create jobs while not creating more housing supply nor using that capital to improve our city like solve homelessness. This is unethical and despicable. The city is not run by the techies who work here. The city is run by rich companies AND entrenched groups. Entrenched groups are the older long-time homeowners looking to push the value of their own homes, the non-profit communities that want to protect their neighborhood's culture and the longtime renters who want to keep their rent control. There are countless entrenched players who push the status quo and the majority of them don't have that much money. Whether you agree that "keeping neighborhood culture" is important or not, we must first acknowledge that doing so is contributing in some way to housing prices. I believe rich companies are not inherently evil. Many wish to help their employees by encouraging cities to build new housing alongside their new offices. However, when push comes to shove, companies will prioritize their office over new housing projects. New offices are also a lot easier to sell to many of the entrenched players. How do we combat this all? We vote! Oh wait... Unfortunately, those who have recently moved here (who tend to be techies) tend not to vote and many cannot simply because they haven't yet lived here long enough. Additionally, those who commute (most people) cannot vote in the locations where may be truly relevant. For example, if I work at Twitter but live in Oakland, I cannot vote to encourage more housing to be built in San Francisco. The other big problem that many ignore is that many of us cannot vote in cities because frankly, we're not American. At last I counted there are over 250,000 Canadians alone that live in the San Francisco Bay Area. Don't forget all the other TN, H-1Bs, L-2, non-visa aliens and families that live (and more than likely, rent) here. The Bay Area likely has the most non-voting capable residents in the US. I would guess that up to 10% of Bay area residents cannot vote.

fosk 11y ago
I live in SF and the problem with housing here is that although the residential neighborhoods are very extended (think of the Richmond), most of the residential buildings are 2/3 story houses that cannot accomodate many people. We need to start replacing these little residential houses with 10 story buildings. There is nowhere else to build, we need to start upgrading the existing buildings. Will that change the city? Well yes, but cities evolve and some of the houses built after the earthquake are anachronistic and of out place in this time.
- martinshen 11y ago
  This is one of many problems that disincentivizes construction projects. To build a new condo in San Francisco is rarely profitable: 1) Unlike other cities, when your building plan fits all criteria, it is not effectively automatically approved. To get your permit, you must comply AND be very lucky. In other cities, you generally must ONLY comply. 2) Once your building has been approved, small community groups may oppose it and the government will reject you if you do not. 3) A substantial percentage of your building must be sold at a loss for affordable housing. Development projects here are effectively the highest risk and highest cost. On top of this, most buildings can only be 4 or 5 stories tall. Of course, the only way to stay afloat is to build luxury overpriced condos. The question is how do you overcome the rich and entrenched voters who effectively control these policy.
  - fosk 11y ago
    > The question is how do you overcome the rich and entrenched voters who effectively control these policy. I can't talk for every category, but the tech industry as a whole would be more than happy to promote these initiatives, because cheaper rents mean cheaper salaries for their employees.
- aetherson 11y ago
  While I do support infill development, San Francisco is already a dense city (the second-densest city in the US after New York City, unless you count much smaller municipalities), and the idea that everyone must, must, must be given the opportunity to live in San Francisco proper is naïve, as is the idea that any but a tiny minority of the homeless in the city would ever be able to afford any kind of market-rate housing even with a wholesale program of infill development. You say "there is nowhere else to build." Sure there is. There is Daly City and Colma and Millbrae and so forth down to San Jose and out into the east bay and even the north bay. Not everyone is going to live in the 49 square miles of SF, even if it becomes considerably more dense. Now, we should also build higher-density housing in SF. But that's not going to change the homelessness situation in any meaningful way.
  - 11y ago
henrikschroder 11y ago
Where I'm from, you're eligible to vote in municipal elections if you're a lawful permanent resident and have resided in the municipality for X years. Citizenship is required for all the election levels above, but local politics is shaped by the people who actually live there. Which I think is pretty nice. I was surprised that in the US, citizenship is required for voting at any level! I can see how that was an attractive policy when the US was originally settled and there were no H1-b visas or 10-year green card wait lists, and being a US citizen didn't make you tax liable globally. But now? Doesn't make a lot of sense.

fosk 11y ago

I live in SF and the problem with housing here is that although the residential neighborhoods are very extended (think of the Richmond), most of the residential buildings are 2/3 story houses that cannot accomodate many people. We need to start replacing these little residential houses with 10 story buildings. There is nowhere else to build, we need to start upgrading the existing buildings. Will that change the city? Well yes, but cities evolve and some of the houses built after the earthquake are anachronistic and of out place in this time.

martinshen 11y ago
This is one of many problems that disincentivizes construction projects. To build a new condo in San Francisco is rarely profitable: 1) Unlike other cities, when your building plan fits all criteria, it is not effectively automatically approved. To get your permit, you must comply AND be very lucky. In other cities, you generally must ONLY comply. 2) Once your building has been approved, small community groups may oppose it and the government will reject you if you do not. 3) A substantial percentage of your building must be sold at a loss for affordable housing. Development projects here are effectively the highest risk and highest cost. On top of this, most buildings can only be 4 or 5 stories tall. Of course, the only way to stay afloat is to build luxury overpriced condos. The question is how do you overcome the rich and entrenched voters who effectively control these policy.
- fosk 11y ago
  > The question is how do you overcome the rich and entrenched voters who effectively control these policy. I can't talk for every category, but the tech industry as a whole would be more than happy to promote these initiatives, because cheaper rents mean cheaper salaries for their employees.
aetherson 11y ago
While I do support infill development, San Francisco is already a dense city (the second-densest city in the US after New York City, unless you count much smaller municipalities), and the idea that everyone must, must, must be given the opportunity to live in San Francisco proper is naïve, as is the idea that any but a tiny minority of the homeless in the city would ever be able to afford any kind of market-rate housing even with a wholesale program of infill development. You say "there is nowhere else to build." Sure there is. There is Daly City and Colma and Millbrae and so forth down to San Jose and out into the east bay and even the north bay. Not everyone is going to live in the 49 square miles of SF, even if it becomes considerably more dense. Now, we should also build higher-density housing in SF. But that's not going to change the homelessness situation in any meaningful way.
- 11y ago

henrikschroder 11y ago

Where I'm from, you're eligible to vote in municipal elections if you're a lawful permanent resident and have resided in the municipality for X years. Citizenship is required for all the election levels above, but local politics is shaped by the people who actually live there. Which I think is pretty nice. I was surprised that in the US, citizenship is required for voting at any level! I can see how that was an attractive policy when the US was originally settled and there were no H1-b visas or 10-year green card wait lists, and being a US citizen didn't make you tax liable globally. But now? Doesn't make a lot of sense.