6 ms·

> the better it is for the rest of the country - entrepreneurial talent has already started to relocate elsewhere It's only better if they move elsewhere and r

by xrange 10y ago

> the better it is for the rest of the country - entrepreneurial talent has already started to relocate elsewhere It's only better if they move elsewhere and refuse to vote for the same policies that caused the problems in the first place.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
The problem is, when you move somewhere else, and you buy your home, you become the person that wants their home value maintained/protected. Are you going to vote against your own interests? If so, I applaud you. Otherwise, you're just distributing the problem across the country, as tech money flows through workers in secondary cities (inflating property prices in Austin, Denver, Boulder, Nashville, Portland, Seattle, etc).
- erikpukinskis 10y ago
  Money über alles, as they say. No other way to live. Get that cash.
- xrange 10y ago
  Yes, we are in agreement it seems. https://www.google.com/#q=%22no+californians%22 https://www.google.com/#q=%22no+californians%22
- moultano 10y ago
  It isn't their home value they are protecting though. Increasing the zoning limit on a plot only causes its value to increase. It's the "character" of their neighborhood. Somehow we've gotten into a cultural state where everyone expects the place they live to stay exactly as it is for their lifetime. It's totally implausible and destructive, but people fight for it anyways, even when it isn't in their financial interest.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    > It's the "character" of their neighborhood. > Somehow we've gotten into a cultural state where everyone expects the place they live to stay exactly as it is for their lifetime. I think this is just human nature. > It's totally implausible and destructive, but people fight for it anyways, even when it isn't in their financial interest. I disagree. Simply look at Europe or historical districts in the US. Its definitely not implausible, and only destructive to new citizens who want to live there (that don't have an existing vested interest in the area). All politics is local, as they say. If local citizens want to keep their neighborhood the same, that's up to them, and its their choice.
    - moultano 10y ago
      >I think this is just human nature. Probably, but I suspect we can trace the triumph of NIMBYism to the baby-boom reaching the "get off my lawn" age. >I disagree. Simply look at Europe or historical districts in the US. Its definitely not implausible, and only destructive to new citizens who want to live there (that don't have an existing vested interest in the area). If the area being "preserved" was limited in some way, then sure. But the reality is that new housing is simply illegal in every positive population growth city in the country. You cannot live in a city as a young person without displacing someone else because we've legislated it that way, and that's insane.
      - ghaff 10y ago
        >But the reality is that new housing is simply illegal in every positive population growth city in the country. Las Vegas? To name one. High population growth. A lot of building.
        cgdub 10y ago
        Seattle. To name another.
      - breischl 10y ago
        >>I suspect we can trace the triumph of NIMBYism to the baby-boom reaching the "get off my lawn" age. Doubtful. The majority of people hate change, and that has probably always been true. A large population influx inevitably causes change, both because of the number of people and because they are always culturally different to some extent. A lot of this used to get wrapped up in nationalism/racism. See US history of prejudice against the Irish, Italians, Poles, etc etc etc. Heck, we even had legal immigration caps on Chinese people. The Boomers might just be the first to resist changes via zoning and regulation rather than more direct action.
  - alanh 10y ago
    > Somehow we've gotten into a cultural state where everyone expects the place they live to stay exactly as it is for their lifetime. I am trying to find a polite way to indicate that I find this to be a completely absurd reversal of the historical trend. Only within the last few generations, certainly within the last century, has it become so common to relocate far and/or frequently instead of most men living the whole of their lives within a day or two’s ride of their childhood home.
    - OvidNaso 10y ago
      Then how is it our species has colonized most of the planet. Surely their is an intense, universal, drive to migrate.
      - hilop 10y ago
        The people are migrate are the members of the lower class who are exiled by law or economics or racism.
        clock_tower 10y ago
        Or lower-middle-class, or otherwise downwardly mobile, and looking to move up; or ideologically motivated. Read Albion's Seed -- the Borderers/Scotch-Irish were poor and exiled, following the model you describe, but the Cavaliers were both downwardly-mobile and eager to create ideological utopias, and the Puritans and Quakers were just looking for places to build utopia -- they were doing well enough economically back in England.
- linkregister 10y ago
  It is actually counter to house owners' interests to block further development. 1. Their children won't be able to continue to live in the area once they become adults (unless they get lucky with a high-income job). 2. If they ever want to down-size and move into a smaller house or apartment after retirement, it won't be economically viable since the smaller place will still be expensive. The only way to adjust to a fixed income is to relocate. Most communities don't do this. It's endemic to California due to the legislation noted in the article. It's rational for Mountain View to restrict housing and promote office space because it's the only way it can afford to keep tax revenue high enough to provide public services.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    I'm unsure which Boomers you've interacted with, but anecdotally, the ones I've talked to a) don't care if their kids can live where they grew up and b) they plan on selling their home for as much as they can get for it and then move to a low tax, low cost of living area when they retire/downsize (some to Florida, some to Central America [either Panama or Belize], one person to Thailand). This is to be expected when you have no defined benefit/pension plans in the US anymore, very few people saved enough for retirement on their own, your social security benefit is anemic, and your home is your most valuable asset. One might argue everyone should save more (they should!), but that's of course going to drag GDP down (can't win). YMMV. Frankly, I feel like we've brought this on as a country ourselves. Dog eat dog catches up.
    - linkregister 10y ago
      This notion of moving to low-cost countries or regions is the vast minority of retired persons. Most stay where their friends and family reside.
- bloopalert 10y ago
  Yes, I do. I'm a home owner and I continuously vote to allow construction and development. Increased supply is likely the cause of a lot of the demand (jobs + cheap housing nationally) so cutting supply only seems maliciously harmful and not directly in anyone's interest. You move to SF despite land costs. You move other places because of it.
maxerickson 10y ago
Down with San Francisco Bay! (Which I agree is probably not a primary driver of housing problems in the Bay area, but geographic constraints make bad policy a lot worse)
colordrops 10y ago
No, it will keep expanding, until the market is tapped out. There will always be a boundary outside of that wave.
ScottBurson 10y ago
Yes. I've started to wonder whether there is anyplace in the US that has both (a) California-style restrictions on non-compete clauses in employment contracts and (b) a Land Value Tax [0] as its primary local tax (not necessarily excluding a state income tax). Since the LVT is not widely used, it looks like the answer is probably No. I think anyplace that wants to attract tech companies should enact both of these things. (Of course, they won't suffice if there's no other reason to move there.) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
- gozur88 10y ago
  Since Pennsylvania is the only state with an LVT it should be pretty easy to ascertain whether or not it fits your conditions.
  - ScottBurson 10y ago
    Hyattsville, MD also has an LVT; but it seems that neither state outlaws (most) non-competes.
- ckluis 10y ago
  If Florida would get better about non-complete clauses it would be ideal. Beach, sales tax base via tourists, no income tax. Alas… it has fairly strong non-complete compliance.
  - seanp2k2 10y ago
    And hurricanes which require occasional abandonment of all your property to save your life. No thanks.
    - shawndumas 10y ago
      and giant flying cockroaches
CWuestefeld 10y ago
This is the big complaint here in the Austin area. There's a huge flux of people into this area, and a significant portion is coming from CA. Many of the locals feel that the CA emigrants didn't learn their lesson; they don't realize that the reason they needed to leave was because of those very policies, and so stupidly begin to make the same mistakes here, pushing to create the same situation.
- Tempest1981 10y ago
  Yet they keep encouraging Californians to relocate to Texas, bragging about low costs and a pro-business environment: https://texaswideopenforbusiness.com https://texaswideopenforbusiness.com Perhaps a screening process is needed?
- scruple 10y ago
  This has been a trend associated with the California refugees going back as far as the 70s, as I've been told by acquaintances in Oregon and Colorado.

by xrange 10y ago

toomuchtodo 10y ago

The problem is, when you move somewhere else, and you buy your home, you become the person that wants their home value maintained/protected. Are you going to vote against your own interests? If so, I applaud you. Otherwise, you're just distributing the problem across the country, as tech money flows through workers in secondary cities (inflating property prices in Austin, Denver, Boulder, Nashville, Portland, Seattle, etc).

erikpukinskis 10y ago
Money über alles, as they say. No other way to live. Get that cash.
xrange 10y ago
Yes, we are in agreement it seems. https://www.google.com/#q=%22no+californians%22 https://www.google.com/#q=%22no+californians%22
moultano 10y ago
It isn't their home value they are protecting though. Increasing the zoning limit on a plot only causes its value to increase. It's the "character" of their neighborhood. Somehow we've gotten into a cultural state where everyone expects the place they live to stay exactly as it is for their lifetime. It's totally implausible and destructive, but people fight for it anyways, even when it isn't in their financial interest.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  > It's the "character" of their neighborhood. > Somehow we've gotten into a cultural state where everyone expects the place they live to stay exactly as it is for their lifetime. I think this is just human nature. > It's totally implausible and destructive, but people fight for it anyways, even when it isn't in their financial interest. I disagree. Simply look at Europe or historical districts in the US. Its definitely not implausible, and only destructive to new citizens who want to live there (that don't have an existing vested interest in the area). All politics is local, as they say. If local citizens want to keep their neighborhood the same, that's up to them, and its their choice.
  - moultano 10y ago
    >I think this is just human nature. Probably, but I suspect we can trace the triumph of NIMBYism to the baby-boom reaching the "get off my lawn" age. >I disagree. Simply look at Europe or historical districts in the US. Its definitely not implausible, and only destructive to new citizens who want to live there (that don't have an existing vested interest in the area). If the area being "preserved" was limited in some way, then sure. But the reality is that new housing is simply illegal in every positive population growth city in the country. You cannot live in a city as a young person without displacing someone else because we've legislated it that way, and that's insane.
    - ghaff 10y ago
      >But the reality is that new housing is simply illegal in every positive population growth city in the country. Las Vegas? To name one. High population growth. A lot of building.
      - cgdub 10y ago
        Seattle. To name another.
    - breischl 10y ago
      >>I suspect we can trace the triumph of NIMBYism to the baby-boom reaching the "get off my lawn" age. Doubtful. The majority of people hate change, and that has probably always been true. A large population influx inevitably causes change, both because of the number of people and because they are always culturally different to some extent. A lot of this used to get wrapped up in nationalism/racism. See US history of prejudice against the Irish, Italians, Poles, etc etc etc. Heck, we even had legal immigration caps on Chinese people. The Boomers might just be the first to resist changes via zoning and regulation rather than more direct action.
- alanh 10y ago
  > Somehow we've gotten into a cultural state where everyone expects the place they live to stay exactly as it is for their lifetime. I am trying to find a polite way to indicate that I find this to be a completely absurd reversal of the historical trend. Only within the last few generations, certainly within the last century, has it become so common to relocate far and/or frequently instead of most men living the whole of their lives within a day or two’s ride of their childhood home.
  - OvidNaso 10y ago
    Then how is it our species has colonized most of the planet. Surely their is an intense, universal, drive to migrate.
    - hilop 10y ago
      The people are migrate are the members of the lower class who are exiled by law or economics or racism.
      - clock_tower 10y ago
        Or lower-middle-class, or otherwise downwardly mobile, and looking to move up; or ideologically motivated. Read Albion's Seed -- the Borderers/Scotch-Irish were poor and exiled, following the model you describe, but the Cavaliers were both downwardly-mobile and eager to create ideological utopias, and the Puritans and Quakers were just looking for places to build utopia -- they were doing well enough economically back in England.
linkregister 10y ago
It is actually counter to house owners' interests to block further development. 1. Their children won't be able to continue to live in the area once they become adults (unless they get lucky with a high-income job). 2. If they ever want to down-size and move into a smaller house or apartment after retirement, it won't be economically viable since the smaller place will still be expensive. The only way to adjust to a fixed income is to relocate. Most communities don't do this. It's endemic to California due to the legislation noted in the article. It's rational for Mountain View to restrict housing and promote office space because it's the only way it can afford to keep tax revenue high enough to provide public services.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  I'm unsure which Boomers you've interacted with, but anecdotally, the ones I've talked to a) don't care if their kids can live where they grew up and b) they plan on selling their home for as much as they can get for it and then move to a low tax, low cost of living area when they retire/downsize (some to Florida, some to Central America [either Panama or Belize], one person to Thailand). This is to be expected when you have no defined benefit/pension plans in the US anymore, very few people saved enough for retirement on their own, your social security benefit is anemic, and your home is your most valuable asset. One might argue everyone should save more (they should!), but that's of course going to drag GDP down (can't win). YMMV. Frankly, I feel like we've brought this on as a country ourselves. Dog eat dog catches up.
  - linkregister 10y ago
    This notion of moving to low-cost countries or regions is the vast minority of retired persons. Most stay where their friends and family reside.
bloopalert 10y ago
Yes, I do. I'm a home owner and I continuously vote to allow construction and development. Increased supply is likely the cause of a lot of the demand (jobs + cheap housing nationally) so cutting supply only seems maliciously harmful and not directly in anyone's interest. You move to SF despite land costs. You move other places because of it.

maxerickson 10y ago

Down with San Francisco Bay! (Which I agree is probably not a primary driver of housing problems in the Bay area, but geographic constraints make bad policy a lot worse)

colordrops 10y ago

No, it will keep expanding, until the market is tapped out. There will always be a boundary outside of that wave.

ScottBurson 10y ago

Yes. I've started to wonder whether there is anyplace in the US that has both (a) California-style restrictions on non-compete clauses in employment contracts and (b) a Land Value Tax [0] as its primary local tax (not necessarily excluding a state income tax). Since the LVT is not widely used, it looks like the answer is probably No. I think anyplace that wants to attract tech companies should enact both of these things. (Of course, they won't suffice if there's no other reason to move there.) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

gozur88 10y ago
Since Pennsylvania is the only state with an LVT it should be pretty easy to ascertain whether or not it fits your conditions.
- ScottBurson 10y ago
  Hyattsville, MD also has an LVT; but it seems that neither state outlaws (most) non-competes.
ckluis 10y ago
If Florida would get better about non-complete clauses it would be ideal. Beach, sales tax base via tourists, no income tax. Alas… it has fairly strong non-complete compliance.
- seanp2k2 10y ago
  And hurricanes which require occasional abandonment of all your property to save your life. No thanks.
  - shawndumas 10y ago
    and giant flying cockroaches

CWuestefeld 10y ago

This is the big complaint here in the Austin area. There's a huge flux of people into this area, and a significant portion is coming from CA. Many of the locals feel that the CA emigrants didn't learn their lesson; they don't realize that the reason they needed to leave was because of those very policies, and so stupidly begin to make the same mistakes here, pushing to create the same situation.

Tempest1981 10y ago
Yet they keep encouraging Californians to relocate to Texas, bragging about low costs and a pro-business environment: https://texaswideopenforbusiness.com https://texaswideopenforbusiness.com Perhaps a screening process is needed?
scruple 10y ago
This has been a trend associated with the California refugees going back as far as the 70s, as I've been told by acquaintances in Oregon and Colorado.