5 ms·

> As an outsider The problem is that "NIMBY politicians" are elected by NIMBY residents. If you are a homeowner, or live in a rent controlled apartment, SF is

by whyenot 10y ago

> As an outsider The problem is that "NIMBY politicians" are elected by NIMBY residents. If you are a homeowner, or live in a rent controlled apartment, SF is a fantastic place and there is little incentive to get rid of zoning laws. To fundamentally change the rental market in SF, you need to craft an argument that convinces these voters to change their minds. The "hey, lets get rid of zoning laws so we can build tons of apartments so more people can live here" argument may make sense if you don't live in SF, but if you are already living there, and vote in SF elections, in many cases, it's not going to be very convincing.

coenhyde 10y ago
I think the best argument for building more is to keep SF weird. A lot of people are sad SF has changed so radically; become less artsy. These same people argue against building up, in the misguided notion that it will destroy their lovely city. But imo what's destroying SF is not high rises but anyone on a sub $100k salary has to live somewhere else. It's becoming a mono culture. And at the end of the day bitching about all the tech people isn't going to solve the problem because you can't tell people where they can and can not live.
- Grishnakh 10y ago
  Well eventually it's going to have a real problem if service workers can't afford to live there. What are they going to do, pay maids and janitors $30/hour to entice them to commute 4 hours a day? There's lots of places where the real estate values are very high, and poorer people are completely priced out of the area. Those places don't have a problem with that, because districts where lower-income people can live aren't all that far away, so it's not that big a deal for service workers to commute so they can work in or near there (as maids, housekeepers etc. for the rich people, or at the local businesses like restaurants located conveniently to those rich people). The problem in SF is that it's geographically bound, and all the surrounding areas also have very high real estate values, so service workers who don't live in one of the rent-controlled places have to commute from very far away. I think eventually, this is going to be a self-correcting problem if the NIMBYs prevent any new development. Pretty soon, it's going to suck living in SF because you won't be able to go out to eat there, you won't be able to buy any groceries there, you won't be able to hire a housekeeper there, etc. It'll be like living way out in the country, but you'll be surrounded by neighbors. Personally, I think they should probably outlaw rent control (it'd probably have to be done at the state level). That's probably enabling SF to maintain itself this way, by giving lower-income people a place to live nearby. Eliminate rent control and those rents will go through the roof, pricing them all out of the city. Then the landowning residents can suffer without any services.
  - Retric 10y ago
    The normal result is people end up living a near homeless lifestyle. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2084971/Hong-Kongs-cage-homes-Tens-thousands-living-6ft-2ft-rabbit-hutches.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2084971/Hong-Kongs-c... 200$/month * 20people = 4,000$ per room.
    - Grishnakh 10y ago
      Why wouldn't they just move somewhere else if they're not rich enough to stay there? SF isn't the only city in the Bay Area, after all; it's surrounded by many other cities. My whole idea is to make it so service workers don't want to live in SF or work there either, causing services to either just not be available, or to cost an absolute fortune, seriously degrading the quality-of-life for SF residents. If you make it so service workers just can't live there (without resorting to illegal overcrowded occupation like you mention here), I think they'd just go elsewhere.
      - coenhyde 10y ago
        The surrounding cities are still ridiculously expensive
        seanp2k2 10y ago
        I think that as bad as it is now, it could get a LOT worse before it gets better.
      - JauntTrooper 10y ago
        Switching costs to move cities is quite high. Even if you find a new job and an affordable place to live -- not that easy to do -- you're going to have to pay a lot of out of pocket expenses (i.e. rental deposit, moving/packing expenses), which is really tough when 47% of American's are so cash strapped they can't afford to pay for a $400 emergency. [0] It also has a high social and emotional strain. You'd be leaving all your family, friends, and cultural identify you've built up in a city. Plus if you're in a relationship or have a family, your partner would need to find work too, and your children would have to leave school/their social circles. It's a really disruptive life change, and though sometimes it can help improve someone's financial situation, it's a tough thing to expect of thousands of people. I can't blame them if choose to keep struggling to get by in their hometown. [0] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/05/my-secret-shame/476415/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/05/my-secre...
- archagon 10y ago
  I imagine high rises will only make the city more tech-broey, not weird — opposite of what the current residents want.
  - seanp2k2 10y ago
    Chicago and Manhattan have lots of high-rises and are not monocultures. Portland is super weird (they take pride in it) and has some high-rises. Why would none of those models work?
    - archagon 10y ago
      From what I can see, there is an immense demand from software developers to move to SF, and the non-techies I engage with have already expressed frustration and exhaustion with the overpowering startup culture in the city.

by whyenot 10y ago

coenhyde 10y ago

I think the best argument for building more is to keep SF weird. A lot of people are sad SF has changed so radically; become less artsy. These same people argue against building up, in the misguided notion that it will destroy their lovely city. But imo what's destroying SF is not high rises but anyone on a sub $100k salary has to live somewhere else. It's becoming a mono culture. And at the end of the day bitching about all the tech people isn't going to solve the problem because you can't tell people where they can and can not live.

Grishnakh 10y ago
Well eventually it's going to have a real problem if service workers can't afford to live there. What are they going to do, pay maids and janitors $30/hour to entice them to commute 4 hours a day? There's lots of places where the real estate values are very high, and poorer people are completely priced out of the area. Those places don't have a problem with that, because districts where lower-income people can live aren't all that far away, so it's not that big a deal for service workers to commute so they can work in or near there (as maids, housekeepers etc. for the rich people, or at the local businesses like restaurants located conveniently to those rich people). The problem in SF is that it's geographically bound, and all the surrounding areas also have very high real estate values, so service workers who don't live in one of the rent-controlled places have to commute from very far away. I think eventually, this is going to be a self-correcting problem if the NIMBYs prevent any new development. Pretty soon, it's going to suck living in SF because you won't be able to go out to eat there, you won't be able to buy any groceries there, you won't be able to hire a housekeeper there, etc. It'll be like living way out in the country, but you'll be surrounded by neighbors. Personally, I think they should probably outlaw rent control (it'd probably have to be done at the state level). That's probably enabling SF to maintain itself this way, by giving lower-income people a place to live nearby. Eliminate rent control and those rents will go through the roof, pricing them all out of the city. Then the landowning residents can suffer without any services.
- Retric 10y ago
  The normal result is people end up living a near homeless lifestyle. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2084971/Hong-Kongs-cage-homes-Tens-thousands-living-6ft-2ft-rabbit-hutches.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2084971/Hong-Kongs-c... 200$/month * 20people = 4,000$ per room.
  - Grishnakh 10y ago
    Why wouldn't they just move somewhere else if they're not rich enough to stay there? SF isn't the only city in the Bay Area, after all; it's surrounded by many other cities. My whole idea is to make it so service workers don't want to live in SF or work there either, causing services to either just not be available, or to cost an absolute fortune, seriously degrading the quality-of-life for SF residents. If you make it so service workers just can't live there (without resorting to illegal overcrowded occupation like you mention here), I think they'd just go elsewhere.
    - coenhyde 10y ago
      The surrounding cities are still ridiculously expensive
      - seanp2k2 10y ago
        I think that as bad as it is now, it could get a LOT worse before it gets better.
    - JauntTrooper 10y ago
      Switching costs to move cities is quite high. Even if you find a new job and an affordable place to live -- not that easy to do -- you're going to have to pay a lot of out of pocket expenses (i.e. rental deposit, moving/packing expenses), which is really tough when 47% of American's are so cash strapped they can't afford to pay for a $400 emergency. [0] It also has a high social and emotional strain. You'd be leaving all your family, friends, and cultural identify you've built up in a city. Plus if you're in a relationship or have a family, your partner would need to find work too, and your children would have to leave school/their social circles. It's a really disruptive life change, and though sometimes it can help improve someone's financial situation, it's a tough thing to expect of thousands of people. I can't blame them if choose to keep struggling to get by in their hometown. [0] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/05/my-secret-shame/476415/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/05/my-secre...
archagon 10y ago
I imagine high rises will only make the city more tech-broey, not weird — opposite of what the current residents want.
- seanp2k2 10y ago
  Chicago and Manhattan have lots of high-rises and are not monocultures. Portland is super weird (they take pride in it) and has some high-rises. Why would none of those models work?
  - archagon 10y ago
    From what I can see, there is an immense demand from software developers to move to SF, and the non-techies I engage with have already expressed frustration and exhaustion with the overpowering startup culture in the city.