3 ms·
@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 developmen
by 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 agoI 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.