4 ms·

The socially accepted answer is "no". I don't just mean in the regional sense (san francisco), but the literal sense (your neighbor's yard). Property can be own

by RickS 10y ago

The socially accepted answer is "no". I don't just mean in the regional sense (san francisco), but the literal sense (your neighbor's yard). Property can be owned, ownership can be transferred/negotiated, and rights tied somehow to that ownership are necessary for occupation. But you're asking the wrong question, IMO. The right question is "do we have a moral obligation to make housing as accessible as it could be for the largest number of people?" I think we do, at least to a point. Some places take it farther than others, but the general consensus is that SF's prices are a result of malleable policies and past decisions, not just hard facts of life (though the "water on 3 sides" thing is a hard fact for sure). People aren't complaining that they're magically entitled to live wherever they happen to be standing. They're complaining that a system capable of helping more people live better is performing pretty poorly. I think that's great that there's uproar. Personally I fear the day we stop demanding that the world around us get better.

cbanek 10y ago
I agree with your question: "do we have a moral obligation to make housing as accessible as it could be for the largest number of people?" I say the answer to that is yes. But if you make the question specific to a particular area, my answer would be no. Just about anywhere in the US is cheaper to house people than SF (other than NYC). It'd also probably be better for the economy to develop other urban and even suburban areas, because there would be more jobs related to people living in those areas (think cashiers, gas stations, places to eat, etc.) While some places are hard to live, because there's no water, no medical services, etc, there's a lot of places to go live. The big question now is about jobs. There's a lot of jobs in SF, and not a lot of jobs in small affordable towns, and people need jobs. But I think that's a self fulfilling cycle, in that tech jobs can really happen anywhere. You don't need a railroad, or factory, or have a port. Overall I feel like people in SF are complaining that they can't afford to live in SF. Not where they are standing, or in a great neighborhood, but they want to live in SF. And most of them are blaming the tech companies completely. I'm also not sure what system is helping or hurting people here. It seems to be simple economics. And while I'm all about helping people, knowing some of the ways people get around rent control in both SF and NYC, you're really fighting the clock to get things back to a normal equilibrium. I'm all about people demanding things get better, but it just seems like people are angry that things suck, and while there are things that we can do (both people and government), nobody is budging.
- pmoriarty 10y ago
  "The big question now is about jobs. There's a lot of jobs in SF, and not a lot of jobs in small affordable towns, and people need jobs." This is ameliorated to some extent by the increased feasibility of telecommuting. If you can telecommute, then you can work from almost anywhere. Unfortunately, there are still prices to pay for telecommuting, even if your workplace allows it. It's not for everyone. I have a friend who did it for a long time, and they got regularly passed over for promotions vs people who worked in the home office, but they got to live in a much more beautiful and much cheaper place than SF. Some people can't concentrate when they work from home. Some miss having coworkers they can socialize with in-person, and so on. But if you can swing working remotely, and don't mind the downsides, then it can be a much saner and more affordable way to go.
  - cbanek 10y ago
    I completely agree with you on this one. Telecommuting can change everything, because suddenly a town with no outside basis of jobs could support a community and have a tax base. (Also, some people work better remotely, away from politics and open office nonsense)
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
imh 10y ago
I like your framing of the question, "Do we have a moral obligation to make housing as accessible as it could be for the largest number of people? I disagree that the answer is yes. Some places are desirable precisely because of their lack of density, and making them denser (a.k.a. less desirable) seems like the wrong answer. There's still plenty of space elsewhere. This is most often derided as NIMBYism, but I don't agree. We could instead focus on making other locations more favorable.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  Devil's advocate: So why not kick out tech workers instead? What makes us so special? Because of the Facebook/Google/Apple lottery?
  - imh 10y ago
    Honestly, I feel like the market works. If you want to sell your home, you sell it to the highest bidder. If I want a spacious home, I have to compete with everyone else who wants one. If I had the money for it, I might buy a 2000 square foot home in SF, but I don't and that's ok with me. It doesn't feel unfair. Because I would like something like that, I'll end up moving somewhere cheaper in a few years. I'm 100% ok with that dynamic. I feel like changing the landscape for the people who are already there just because I can't afford it is the wrong solution. They settled down there because they like it, and I'd rather move than ruin it just so I can stay. There tons of second order effects, and I'm not arguing for a complete "let the market decide all things" libertarian stance or a "don't ever change things" stance either, but I don't like the other extreme either, where we are willing to discard the character of a place because jobs are dense there. I don't really know what I'm rambling about now, I just don't agree with the extreme of "make housing as accessible as it could be for the largest number of people." I'm happy to be priced out of places were I would love to live, and prefer that to the alternative of making them places I wouldn't want to live, I guess?

by RickS 10y ago

cbanek 10y ago

I agree with your question: "do we have a moral obligation to make housing as accessible as it could be for the largest number of people?" I say the answer to that is yes. But if you make the question specific to a particular area, my answer would be no. Just about anywhere in the US is cheaper to house people than SF (other than NYC). It'd also probably be better for the economy to develop other urban and even suburban areas, because there would be more jobs related to people living in those areas (think cashiers, gas stations, places to eat, etc.) While some places are hard to live, because there's no water, no medical services, etc, there's a lot of places to go live. The big question now is about jobs. There's a lot of jobs in SF, and not a lot of jobs in small affordable towns, and people need jobs. But I think that's a self fulfilling cycle, in that tech jobs can really happen anywhere. You don't need a railroad, or factory, or have a port. Overall I feel like people in SF are complaining that they can't afford to live in SF. Not where they are standing, or in a great neighborhood, but they want to live in SF. And most of them are blaming the tech companies completely. I'm also not sure what system is helping or hurting people here. It seems to be simple economics. And while I'm all about helping people, knowing some of the ways people get around rent control in both SF and NYC, you're really fighting the clock to get things back to a normal equilibrium. I'm all about people demanding things get better, but it just seems like people are angry that things suck, and while there are things that we can do (both people and government), nobody is budging.

pmoriarty 10y ago
"The big question now is about jobs. There's a lot of jobs in SF, and not a lot of jobs in small affordable towns, and people need jobs." This is ameliorated to some extent by the increased feasibility of telecommuting. If you can telecommute, then you can work from almost anywhere. Unfortunately, there are still prices to pay for telecommuting, even if your workplace allows it. It's not for everyone. I have a friend who did it for a long time, and they got regularly passed over for promotions vs people who worked in the home office, but they got to live in a much more beautiful and much cheaper place than SF. Some people can't concentrate when they work from home. Some miss having coworkers they can socialize with in-person, and so on. But if you can swing working remotely, and don't mind the downsides, then it can be a much saner and more affordable way to go.
- cbanek 10y ago
  I completely agree with you on this one. Telecommuting can change everything, because suddenly a town with no outside basis of jobs could support a community and have a tax base. (Also, some people work better remotely, away from politics and open office nonsense)
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

imh 10y ago

I like your framing of the question, "Do we have a moral obligation to make housing as accessible as it could be for the largest number of people? I disagree that the answer is yes. Some places are desirable precisely because of their lack of density, and making them denser (a.k.a. less desirable) seems like the wrong answer. There's still plenty of space elsewhere. This is most often derided as NIMBYism, but I don't agree. We could instead focus on making other locations more favorable.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
Devil's advocate: So why not kick out tech workers instead? What makes us so special? Because of the Facebook/Google/Apple lottery?
- imh 10y ago
  Honestly, I feel like the market works. If you want to sell your home, you sell it to the highest bidder. If I want a spacious home, I have to compete with everyone else who wants one. If I had the money for it, I might buy a 2000 square foot home in SF, but I don't and that's ok with me. It doesn't feel unfair. Because I would like something like that, I'll end up moving somewhere cheaper in a few years. I'm 100% ok with that dynamic. I feel like changing the landscape for the people who are already there just because I can't afford it is the wrong solution. They settled down there because they like it, and I'd rather move than ruin it just so I can stay. There tons of second order effects, and I'm not arguing for a complete "let the market decide all things" libertarian stance or a "don't ever change things" stance either, but I don't like the other extreme either, where we are willing to discard the character of a place because jobs are dense there. I don't really know what I'm rambling about now, I just don't agree with the extreme of "make housing as accessible as it could be for the largest number of people." I'm happy to be priced out of places were I would love to live, and prefer that to the alternative of making them places I wouldn't want to live, I guess?