5 ms·

just. build. more. housing. units.

• lisper 11y ago
  Restricted development is one of the reasons the peninsula is such a desirable place to live. There's a lot of open space, and expensive housing helps keep out the riff-raff. (Note to downvoters: the reference to riff-raff was intended to be ironically humorous in the context of a story about how the people being kept out are firefighters and teachers.)
  • scurvy 11y ago
    Wait, if the bad influence of riff raff is kept out, what's to explain the staggering teen suicide rate in Palo Alto? It's the best place in the world! Our high cost of living dictates it!
    • lisper 11y ago
      I was being a little bit ironic about the riff-raff. (I was hoping this would be obvious in the context of a discussion of how firefighters and teachers can't afford to live here, but HN tends to be a little humor-impaired.) But I don't see why you would think that the teen suicide rate would have anything to do with how desirable it is to live in Palo Alto. People get depressed for all kinds of reasons, but how nice your neighborhood is is very rarely one of them. The high suicide rate in PA is tragic. But it doesn't change the fact that PA is a nice place to live if you can afford it, and one of the things that makes it a nice place to live is that the density is low but the wealth concentration is high.
      • scurvy 11y ago
        And all the money in the world can't buy you happiness, so stop turning communities into country clubs.
        • lisper 11y ago
          Money is neither necessary nor sufficient for happiness, but that doesn't mean that it can't help tilt the odds heavily in your favor. Money is a tool. If you use it right you can get a lot of leverage out of it, and if you use it wrong you can do a lot of damage. But it's very rarely a no-op. And what's wrong with turning communities into country clubs? Country clubs are very pleasant places to be. Why not make your community like one if you can?
    • username223 11y ago
      > Wait, if the bad influence of riff raff is kept out, what's to explain the staggering teen suicide rate in Palo Alto? Natural selection?
  • joshAg 11y ago
    So let's ignore the troubling implications of your use of 'riff-raff' for the moment and assume that your basic premise is true: restricting development keeps out certain people. The more more development restrictions there are, the more people will be kept out. At a certain point, the people who are kept out are will include people who you wouldn't otherwise want to keep out, however, you define that. And this doesn't have to be a result of increasing the restrictions on development. For example if there are more 'desirable' people who want to move to the area than there are available houses/new developments, then some of the desirable people will be forced out. Of course, there's also the major untrue assumption that you make that the only way to maintain open space and desirability is to restrict development. Higher density infill housing doesn't intrude on the existing open space, sicne by definition it's slotting in between buildings in already developed areas. And of course, places like Singapore, Hong Kong, Paris, and New York City are proofs by existence that desirability and less restrictive development are not mutually exclusive. But let's get back to 'riff-raff' and keeping that out. That's just racist and classist.
    • lisper 11y ago
      > some of the desirable people will be forced out Yes, that's kind of the whole point of the original article. > Singapore, Hong Kong, Paris, and New York City I have been to all of those places, and while they are all wonderful to visit I would not want to live in any of them in large part because of how dense they are. Building more housing is not a no-brainer. You're just trading one set of problems for a different set of problems. > But let's get back to 'riff-raff' and keeping that out. That's just racist and classist. It was intended as ironic humor. But I apologize if you were offended.
• Chronic51 11y ago
  As someone who owns a house in PA/Menlo, no. I will lobby, make calls, and write checks to government to make sure it doesn't happen. Is it fair? No. Ethical? No. Doesn't matter to me.
  • URSpider94 11y ago
    Thanks for your honesty!!
  • guard-of-terra 11y ago
    I think the described situation can be resolved in an elegant, Ankh-Morporkian style: Let's just start by burning down your house.
    • noir_lord 11y ago
      Just sell him some inn-sewer-ants first. ;)
  • chrisper 11y ago
    Lol is this satire or are you a troll? Because I can't tell.
    • PhasmaFelis 11y ago
      Account created 3 days ago, 4 posts, -7 karma. I'm thinking troll.
  • morgante 11y ago
    It's refreshing to see the rentier class admitting their political goals so directly.
• brighteyes 11y ago
  Building more units is the only true, long-term solution. But even if it ever happens, it will take many years. Meanwhile, the following should happen: * Firefighters, teachers, etc., who receive a salary from the local government should be paid enough to live within a reasonable distance. It's fair to them and it's necessary for them to do their (crucial) jobs properly. * Their salaries must rise until they are high enough. * Taxes must be raised until the local government can pay those higher salaries. * Most of those taxes should be on the various multi-billion corporations, because no one else can bear them. Those corporations are also the main cause of the rise in rent, so this is logical in that sense as well: taxes can keep rising until they slow down in bringing people here and raising rents. In other words, raise taxes until growth slows down to the rate at which we are building units.
• rokhayakebe 11y ago
  just. move. out. of. there.
  • joshAg 11y ago
    That totally works for me, but it doesn't solve the city of Palo Alto's problem, which is that their public servants, like firefighters, can only afford to live hours away.