3 ms·

It's a combination of a number of reasons but yes, it is in large part due to zoning and NIMBYism. SF and the Bay Area as a whole are incredibly expensive place

by Inconel 10y ago

It's a combination of a number of reasons but yes, it is in large part due to zoning and NIMBYism. SF and the Bay Area as a whole are incredibly expensive places to build housing. Much of the peninsula is completely hostile to density, and to an only slightly lesser extent, so is SF. It doesn't help that through subsidies such as Prop 13 and rent control, a large part of the voting block is essentially insulated from the horrible policy decisions they support. In addition, you shouldn't be so surprised that this is what has become of the former hippy capital of the world. SF style liberals aren't actually nearly as progressive as they would like the world to think. Many of those who you might identify as hippies are simply self entitled white people from middle class and above childhoods. The real working class of this country didn't have the ability to move to SF in the 60's to be part of the whole counter culture movement. It should come as no surprise that those who did aren't too fond of poor working class people living in "their" city.

Tempest1981 10y ago
I have friends who are NIMBYs, so I've come to understand how they feel. I don't think it helps to label and disparage them. They feel a bit like the Native Americans felt when white men took over their land. They were here first, living peacefully. The NIMBYs didn't ask for tech companies to take over their cities, and try to drive them out. Some still want to stay, because they grew up here, and all their friends are here. Others are sick of the congestion we've created, and would like to move outward to, say, Woodside or Saratoga, but those places are even more expensive. And yes, property tax would be brutal if they moved. So can't capture the gains on their homes either. They're stuck. I wish I could suggest a good alternative to them... are there any?
- Inconel 10y ago
  You're right, perhaps I shouldn't be so disparaging of SF NIMBYs, although likening their situation to the forced taking of land from Native Americans is surely overly sympathetic, if not down right insulting. For the record, I spent part of my childhood in the Bay Area, I graduated from high school in SF, most of my closest childhood friends were made during my time in SF/Oakland, some of my best childhood memories were made there, and I could not reasonably afford to live there today if I were to move back. So, in many ways I am very sympathetic to the human toll that increased housing costs result in as they keep me from ever moving back. With that being said, SF and the Bay Area as a whole have been underdeveloping housing for decades, this is not a recent trend related solely to tech. I have a very hard time feeling sorry for a group of voters who vote down any sensible housing and density initiatives and then years later complain about increased housing costs. It doesn't take a policy expert to predict what will happen here. I particularly don't have much sympathy when those same voters who are incredibly adept at holding back high density development are perfectly fine greenlighting corporate parks and commercial development. It seems to me that many Bay Area municipalities, and by extension their voters, love the added tax revenue that large employers bring in but don't want to adapt the environment to house said employees. So no, in short I'm not buying the argument that they didn't ask for the tech companies to take over their cities. In fact, they wanted exactly this. They also wanted some other municipality to shoulder the cost of housing those employees. They are now realizing that they probably can't have it both ways. With regards to congestion, this is just as much the fault of a population increase as it is the fault of communities in the Bay Area being unwilling to make the necessary investments in housing and transit. And of course it's been long time Bay Area residents who have fought those investments. >So can't capture the gains on their homes either. They can't capture those gains right now. I'm sure they'll be more than happy to capture those gains in the future when they sell or pass on their houses to their kids. This is what really bothers me about Prop 13. If CA voters are truly worried about grandma being forced out of her house due to tax increases, then sure, lets have some mechanism to insure that doesn't happen. Personally, I think the result of such programs is that you end up with grandma living alone in a 4 bedroom house on a 7,000 sq ft lot in Palo Alto, not exactly an efficient use of land. But I get it, people don't want to downsize later in life. Maybe instead we could have a system were the property taxes are capped at a predefined rate while owning the home, as currently happens under Prop 13, but the difference between the capped taxes and the current taxes are accrued and held as a lien against the home so when it is sold the back taxes are paid off. The current system were long time homeowners are subsidized by newer owners but are allowed to reap the rewards of increased real estate prices seems terribly unfair. If we're going to have rent control, I'd also like to see that it's means tested so we don't have upper income renters holding on to SF property as pied-à-terres. Ultimately, the only real long term solutions will be to build far more dense housing, and the transit to go along with it, or make the Bay Area a less desirable place to live. If the residents of the Bay Area want to preserve it as it currently is, that's fine by me, but then they don't get to complain when they can no longer afford to live there. >They were here first, living peacefully. This argument to me basically boils down to "I got mine, so screw everyone else". Sorry if I'm not too sympathetic to it. If Bay Area residents are so against other Americans moving to their cities, perhaps they should organize politically to introduce a Constitutional amendment that forbids "non natives", good luck defining that, from living there. They could even set up border checks when entering the cities. Of course, other cities may then similarly choose to ban Bay Area residents from moving in. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that Bay Area NIMBYs will suddenly think that this is horribly unfair.

by Inconel 10y ago

Tempest1981 10y ago

I have friends who are NIMBYs, so I've come to understand how they feel. I don't think it helps to label and disparage them. They feel a bit like the Native Americans felt when white men took over their land. They were here first, living peacefully. The NIMBYs didn't ask for tech companies to take over their cities, and try to drive them out. Some still want to stay, because they grew up here, and all their friends are here. Others are sick of the congestion we've created, and would like to move outward to, say, Woodside or Saratoga, but those places are even more expensive. And yes, property tax would be brutal if they moved. So can't capture the gains on their homes either. They're stuck. I wish I could suggest a good alternative to them... are there any?

Inconel 10y ago
You're right, perhaps I shouldn't be so disparaging of SF NIMBYs, although likening their situation to the forced taking of land from Native Americans is surely overly sympathetic, if not down right insulting. For the record, I spent part of my childhood in the Bay Area, I graduated from high school in SF, most of my closest childhood friends were made during my time in SF/Oakland, some of my best childhood memories were made there, and I could not reasonably afford to live there today if I were to move back. So, in many ways I am very sympathetic to the human toll that increased housing costs result in as they keep me from ever moving back. With that being said, SF and the Bay Area as a whole have been underdeveloping housing for decades, this is not a recent trend related solely to tech. I have a very hard time feeling sorry for a group of voters who vote down any sensible housing and density initiatives and then years later complain about increased housing costs. It doesn't take a policy expert to predict what will happen here. I particularly don't have much sympathy when those same voters who are incredibly adept at holding back high density development are perfectly fine greenlighting corporate parks and commercial development. It seems to me that many Bay Area municipalities, and by extension their voters, love the added tax revenue that large employers bring in but don't want to adapt the environment to house said employees. So no, in short I'm not buying the argument that they didn't ask for the tech companies to take over their cities. In fact, they wanted exactly this. They also wanted some other municipality to shoulder the cost of housing those employees. They are now realizing that they probably can't have it both ways. With regards to congestion, this is just as much the fault of a population increase as it is the fault of communities in the Bay Area being unwilling to make the necessary investments in housing and transit. And of course it's been long time Bay Area residents who have fought those investments. >So can't capture the gains on their homes either. They can't capture those gains right now. I'm sure they'll be more than happy to capture those gains in the future when they sell or pass on their houses to their kids. This is what really bothers me about Prop 13. If CA voters are truly worried about grandma being forced out of her house due to tax increases, then sure, lets have some mechanism to insure that doesn't happen. Personally, I think the result of such programs is that you end up with grandma living alone in a 4 bedroom house on a 7,000 sq ft lot in Palo Alto, not exactly an efficient use of land. But I get it, people don't want to downsize later in life. Maybe instead we could have a system were the property taxes are capped at a predefined rate while owning the home, as currently happens under Prop 13, but the difference between the capped taxes and the current taxes are accrued and held as a lien against the home so when it is sold the back taxes are paid off. The current system were long time homeowners are subsidized by newer owners but are allowed to reap the rewards of increased real estate prices seems terribly unfair. If we're going to have rent control, I'd also like to see that it's means tested so we don't have upper income renters holding on to SF property as pied-à-terres. Ultimately, the only real long term solutions will be to build far more dense housing, and the transit to go along with it, or make the Bay Area a less desirable place to live. If the residents of the Bay Area want to preserve it as it currently is, that's fine by me, but then they don't get to complain when they can no longer afford to live there. >They were here first, living peacefully. This argument to me basically boils down to "I got mine, so screw everyone else". Sorry if I'm not too sympathetic to it. If Bay Area residents are so against other Americans moving to their cities, perhaps they should organize politically to introduce a Constitutional amendment that forbids "non natives", good luck defining that, from living there. They could even set up border checks when entering the cities. Of course, other cities may then similarly choose to ban Bay Area residents from moving in. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that Bay Area NIMBYs will suddenly think that this is horribly unfair.