8 ms·

It's true that dealing with a ton of new residents requires a lot of infrastructural work on the part of local governments. I don't think anyone denies that. Th

It's true that dealing with a ton of new residents requires a lot of infrastructural work on the part of local governments. I don't think anyone denies that. The issue is that it's not a choice between getting a lot of new residents or not getting a lot of new residents. Empirically, tons of people are moving to the Bay Area every year, whether local governments like it or not, whether they make provision for that or not. It's happening, and there's no legal way to stop it. Resisting new development doesn't stop people from moving here, nor does it remove the need to build out new infrastructure. It simply makes property values become that much higher, because there's a fixed supply and a growing demand. This is, I think the main factor in why NIMBYs resist development: their own property is worth much more every year. Building new residences would only slow the rate of appreciation of their property.

hkarthik 10y ago
@pjlegato I think it's a fair point, but as a local resident I don't see the "attack on our property values" argument come up much with blocking new development. Again, it's something only a very small minority are concerned about because it's not an immediate problem that everyone feels right away compared to all the others.
- pjlegato 10y ago
  I agree that most people don't conceptualize it in quite those terms, but the choice really is: * Allow new higher density development, accept that your neighborhood will be under construction for years and then will look vastly different forever; and besides that, the city has to divert budget from other things to pay for building expanded infrastructure now (because California property taxes are mostly fixed by Prop 13); * Fight development, the city spends that money on your pet project instead, the neighborhood looks the same as it always has, and then there's the bonus that your house will be worth a whole lot more in 5 or 10 years. This is why you have unremarkable 1950s-era 3 bedroom ranch houses that would go for 75k in most US suburbs selling for $2m in Silicon Valley. It's why you can pay $5000 a month for an apartment in San Francisco that would be $700 a month in most US cities.
davmre 10y ago
> Resisting new development doesn't stop people from moving here, nor does it remove the need to build out new infrastructure. Sure it does. People aren't living in tents (generally speaking). Population can't grow unless the housing supply does. There might still be a growing demand for Bay Area housing, but without supply growth, the effect of that demand is to push prices up until current residents are forced to leave. NIMBY housing policy has a lot of shitty side effects, but it does succeed at the basic goal of maintaining low population density.
- twblalock 10y ago
  > Sure it does. People aren't living in tents (generally speaking). Population can't grow unless the housing supply does. Population can grow even if the housing supply does not, if the existing population becomes concentrated into fewer dwellings. Bay Area residents who used to have their own apartments or houses are now renting rooms and sharing apartments or houses with others. The people moving here are generally wealthier or higher paid than the existing residents, and will not be deterred from moving here until the number of high-paying job openings decreases. Regarding living in tents, there has been a noticeable increase in the homeless population in recent years. It's not clear if they were displaced from housing or came here from somewhere else, but there is no denying the increase.
- namesbc 10y ago
  71% of the homeless population in SF (who are now living in tent cities) used to live in a home in SF: http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/What-San-Franciscans-know-about-homeless-isn-t-7224018.php http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/What-San-Francisc...
  - Kalium 10y ago
    Please bear in mind that the wording on the question means that someone in a homeless shelter or city-funded SRO for a month "used to live in a home in SF". Which is to say that the number is meaningful, but needs to be taken with a substantial grain of salt.
- 10y ago

hkarthik 10y ago

@pjlegato I think it's a fair point, but as a local resident I don't see the "attack on our property values" argument come up much with blocking new development. Again, it's something only a very small minority are concerned about because it's not an immediate problem that everyone feels right away compared to all the others.

pjlegato 10y ago
I agree that most people don't conceptualize it in quite those terms, but the choice really is: * Allow new higher density development, accept that your neighborhood will be under construction for years and then will look vastly different forever; and besides that, the city has to divert budget from other things to pay for building expanded infrastructure now (because California property taxes are mostly fixed by Prop 13); * Fight development, the city spends that money on your pet project instead, the neighborhood looks the same as it always has, and then there's the bonus that your house will be worth a whole lot more in 5 or 10 years. This is why you have unremarkable 1950s-era 3 bedroom ranch houses that would go for 75k in most US suburbs selling for $2m in Silicon Valley. It's why you can pay $5000 a month for an apartment in San Francisco that would be $700 a month in most US cities.

davmre 10y ago

> Resisting new development doesn't stop people from moving here, nor does it remove the need to build out new infrastructure. Sure it does. People aren't living in tents (generally speaking). Population can't grow unless the housing supply does. There might still be a growing demand for Bay Area housing, but without supply growth, the effect of that demand is to push prices up until current residents are forced to leave. NIMBY housing policy has a lot of shitty side effects, but it does succeed at the basic goal of maintaining low population density.

twblalock 10y ago
> Sure it does. People aren't living in tents (generally speaking). Population can't grow unless the housing supply does. Population can grow even if the housing supply does not, if the existing population becomes concentrated into fewer dwellings. Bay Area residents who used to have their own apartments or houses are now renting rooms and sharing apartments or houses with others. The people moving here are generally wealthier or higher paid than the existing residents, and will not be deterred from moving here until the number of high-paying job openings decreases. Regarding living in tents, there has been a noticeable increase in the homeless population in recent years. It's not clear if they were displaced from housing or came here from somewhere else, but there is no denying the increase.
namesbc 10y ago
71% of the homeless population in SF (who are now living in tent cities) used to live in a home in SF: http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/What-San-Franciscans-know-about-homeless-isn-t-7224018.php http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/What-San-Francisc...
- Kalium 10y ago
  Please bear in mind that the wording on the question means that someone in a homeless shelter or city-funded SRO for a month "used to live in a home in SF". Which is to say that the number is meaningful, but needs to be taken with a substantial grain of salt.
10y ago