4 ms·

People keep saying 'SF should allow for more development' as if it's a universal human right to live in SF; while current residents are being mean by not wantin

People keep saying 'SF should allow for more development' as if it's a universal human right to live in SF; while current residents are being mean by not wanting highrises on their block. SF is nice, more people want to live there than there's space, hence, not everyone can afford it. Why would the current owners/residents want to change that? I really don't get it.

heartsucker 10y ago
Think of it reverse. Is it a universal right to have luxurious places to live in a high demand area? Why would people who want to move into or remain in SF on a budget not want to change that? This is why issues like this are complicated. Both sides have some merit. (also, not taking sides since I don't live there any more)
- kofejnik 10y ago
  Not very complicated, there are universal human rights, plus whatever is guaranteed in a relevant constitution. Everything else is for those who can afford it. Luxurious place in high demand area is one example. (should we strive to make Ferraris affordable?) Otherwise, can people come live in your apartment? Why do you keep your place and your food and your car to yourself? Certainly a lot of people would want to change that.
  - heartsucker 10y ago
    Ok, sure. It's not a universal human right, but we can do better than the absolute minimum to give some semblance of equality to people instead of leaving people's lives to the fate of where they were born in the world and how rich their parents were. If there was universal health care out in the world that said vaccinations and emergency procedures were free for everyone, but if you were born on Feb 1st, you also got a personal trainer and free cosmetic surgery, everyone else would be within reason to complain about such a system. This is effectively what is happening here.
    - kofejnik 10y ago
      as someone born in USSR, I assure you that artificial equality sucks much harder than natural inequality
- dangrover 10y ago
  Because cities are places of opportunity and culture where people can come to better their lot. Everyone should have some level of access to them, though not necessarily a luxury flat. There needs to be some basic bottom rung available. And cities need fresh blood to continue to grow and thrive, or else it just becomes a retirement community/tourist destination.
pessimizer 10y ago
It's an rationalization from wealthy young upper middle class people who feel entitled to everything they want in life, used to attack wealthy homeowners who are entitled to make decisions about SF. And it's encouraged by mostly geriatric mega-wealthy large land owners who know 1) that that removing height and other restrictions will raise the value of their holdings even more, 2) that building high and ugly with inadequate parking or local services on property they already own will push those wealthy homeowners to sell en masse, and 3) they have the billions and the leverage to buy. It's cynical manipulation of the selfishness of already entitled-feeling tech kids. All restrictions will be lifted, massive high-rises will go up, the property in the shade of them with be purchased by multi-billionaires, REITS and hedge funds, they will all instantly stop building and collude to keep rentals at the current prices, or even raise them, and all the tech kids will still be renting. edit: it's a fantasy to think that rental prices will go down if high-rises get built. Call me Nostradamus, but half of the units in those high-rises will sit empty and be used to write-off taxes from the owners' other holdings (at the current neighborhood rental value of course) just like in every other hot property market in the world.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
If people actually supported preserving existing units/communities exactly as they are, with no change, then they would vote to expand rent-control to 100% of all rented units in the city, thus ensuring that anyone who gets an apartment in San Francisco will be able to stay indefinitely. But actually, people only care about their cheap housing, not cheap housing for everyone.

heartsucker 10y ago

Think of it reverse. Is it a universal right to have luxurious places to live in a high demand area? Why would people who want to move into or remain in SF on a budget not want to change that? This is why issues like this are complicated. Both sides have some merit. (also, not taking sides since I don't live there any more)

kofejnik 10y ago
Not very complicated, there are universal human rights, plus whatever is guaranteed in a relevant constitution. Everything else is for those who can afford it. Luxurious place in high demand area is one example. (should we strive to make Ferraris affordable?) Otherwise, can people come live in your apartment? Why do you keep your place and your food and your car to yourself? Certainly a lot of people would want to change that.
- heartsucker 10y ago
  Ok, sure. It's not a universal human right, but we can do better than the absolute minimum to give some semblance of equality to people instead of leaving people's lives to the fate of where they were born in the world and how rich their parents were. If there was universal health care out in the world that said vaccinations and emergency procedures were free for everyone, but if you were born on Feb 1st, you also got a personal trainer and free cosmetic surgery, everyone else would be within reason to complain about such a system. This is effectively what is happening here.
  - kofejnik 10y ago
    as someone born in USSR, I assure you that artificial equality sucks much harder than natural inequality
dangrover 10y ago
Because cities are places of opportunity and culture where people can come to better their lot. Everyone should have some level of access to them, though not necessarily a luxury flat. There needs to be some basic bottom rung available. And cities need fresh blood to continue to grow and thrive, or else it just becomes a retirement community/tourist destination.

pessimizer 10y ago

It's an rationalization from wealthy young upper middle class people who feel entitled to everything they want in life, used to attack wealthy homeowners who are entitled to make decisions about SF. And it's encouraged by mostly geriatric mega-wealthy large land owners who know 1) that that removing height and other restrictions will raise the value of their holdings even more, 2) that building high and ugly with inadequate parking or local services on property they already own will push those wealthy homeowners to sell en masse, and 3) they have the billions and the leverage to buy. It's cynical manipulation of the selfishness of already entitled-feeling tech kids. All restrictions will be lifted, massive high-rises will go up, the property in the shade of them with be purchased by multi-billionaires, REITS and hedge funds, they will all instantly stop building and collude to keep rentals at the current prices, or even raise them, and all the tech kids will still be renting. edit: it's a fantasy to think that rental prices will go down if high-rises get built. Call me Nostradamus, but half of the units in those high-rises will sit empty and be used to write-off taxes from the owners' other holdings (at the current neighborhood rental value of course) just like in every other hot property market in the world.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

If people actually supported preserving existing units/communities exactly as they are, with no change, then they would vote to expand rent-control to 100% of all rented units in the city, thus ensuring that anyone who gets an apartment in San Francisco will be able to stay indefinitely. But actually, people only care about their cheap housing, not cheap housing for everyone.