4 ms·

Good point. The bus thing is not the only example those people are contradictory against themselves. They blame techies for the hike of real-estate price, whic

Good point. The bus thing is not the only example those people are contradictory against themselves. They blame techies for the hike of real-estate price, which to certain degree is justified. But at the same time they also oppose any construction of high density accommodation, blaming the company for destroying the neighborhood culture, talking about the good old days with orchards and trees. I think what is really important here is, story like this fits into the narrative that big companies are inherently evil, and live their success on the misery of everyone else. I think you will be surprised how wide-spread it is, even on HN. My biggest issue is their motivation: it is completely destructive. The only resolution, if according to them, is to reverse this, which I don't know how to accomplish, without severely disrupting the local economy, but I guess they don't care either, they got the clicks already. shrug.

michaelt 9y ago
They blame techies for the hike of real-estate price, [...] they also oppose any construction of high density accommodation My theory is there are three parties in this discussion. Renter Roy can't afford a house, and thinks tech companies' money is bidding up prices. Homeowner Harold has lived and worked in this neighbourhood for 40 years and doesn't want its character to change and his house's value to fall. Techie Tammy wants somewhere to live, she'd prefer not to spend a fortune to live in a hovel while her neighbours shame her for gentrifying. Any pair of Roy, Harold and Tammy can get on OK - but it's just not possible for all three of them to get what they want. There seems to be a contradiction - but that's because any time Roy and Tammy are about to agree, Harold is motivated to enter the conversation and disagree - and the same thing happens when Harold and Tammy are about to agree.
- cupscale 9y ago
  Actually, does Harold ever agree with either party? Tammy and Roy both want low housing costs, and Harold doesn't. Sure, you can get to an armistice with Harold and Tammy: Housing costs are high but your salary is such that even spending 66% of your pay on housing leaves you with an ample amount of money. But I wouldn't call that agreement anything other than begrudging.
  - Bartweiss 9y ago
    > Actually, does Harold ever agree with either party? Tammy and Roy both want low housing costs, and Harold doesn't. This seems like the essential problem. Harold isn't actually a buyer in the housing market; he locked in a fixed-rate mortgage 20 years ago. If he's planning on retiring somewhere outside the city, or to a managed community, he might never be on the buyer's side of the market again. But he's definitely a seller - that house will presumably be sold or passed on to his kids. Property taxes are a pain, but they're a manageable one for a house bought as an investment. Harold is actively opposed to Roy and Tammy; if their rent doubled that would be a good outcome for him. We keep treating this like all the residents of the city are a group, but that's not true. Renters own zero units of housing, homeowners own one unit, landlords own multiple. It's not at all guaranteed that homeowners align with renters more than with landlords.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      There is a limit to the extent which the higher property taxes are tolerable and most people aren't really investors. However, as I understand it (I am on the East Coast), in California's case your property tax is actually locked in at the time of purchase regardless of appreciation.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  Seems like only Bay Area homeowners lose out if big tech companies decide to stop colocating all their workers in a handful of zip codes. And they won't get much of a say in that case.
  - sjg007 9y ago
    The execs like the Bay Area..
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      Good point. There's more to the preferences of executives than they might care to acknowledge.
- da3mon5 9y ago
  > Any pair of Roy, Harold and Tammy can get on OK - but it's just not possible for all three of them to get what they want. But this is a dilemma (or in this case a trilemma) only for individuals, "don't change the nature of this neighbourhood" shouldn't be something policymakers care about.
  - ForHackernews 9y ago
    > "don't change the nature of this neighbourhood" shouldn't be something policymakers care about. Who do you think votes for those policymakers? (And donates to their campaigns)
ryanbrunner 9y ago
While there are people who oppose high-density construction in general, the writer of this article isn't necessarily among them. There's a difference between the arguments "we shouldn't build high-density housing" and "having employees' housing, shopping, and most of their other needs provided by their employer has lead to some bad things in the past".

michaelt 9y ago

They blame techies for the hike of real-estate price, [...] they also oppose any construction of high density accommodation My theory is there are three parties in this discussion. Renter Roy can't afford a house, and thinks tech companies' money is bidding up prices. Homeowner Harold has lived and worked in this neighbourhood for 40 years and doesn't want its character to change and his house's value to fall. Techie Tammy wants somewhere to live, she'd prefer not to spend a fortune to live in a hovel while her neighbours shame her for gentrifying. Any pair of Roy, Harold and Tammy can get on OK - but it's just not possible for all three of them to get what they want. There seems to be a contradiction - but that's because any time Roy and Tammy are about to agree, Harold is motivated to enter the conversation and disagree - and the same thing happens when Harold and Tammy are about to agree.

cupscale 9y ago
Actually, does Harold ever agree with either party? Tammy and Roy both want low housing costs, and Harold doesn't. Sure, you can get to an armistice with Harold and Tammy: Housing costs are high but your salary is such that even spending 66% of your pay on housing leaves you with an ample amount of money. But I wouldn't call that agreement anything other than begrudging.
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  > Actually, does Harold ever agree with either party? Tammy and Roy both want low housing costs, and Harold doesn't. This seems like the essential problem. Harold isn't actually a buyer in the housing market; he locked in a fixed-rate mortgage 20 years ago. If he's planning on retiring somewhere outside the city, or to a managed community, he might never be on the buyer's side of the market again. But he's definitely a seller - that house will presumably be sold or passed on to his kids. Property taxes are a pain, but they're a manageable one for a house bought as an investment. Harold is actively opposed to Roy and Tammy; if their rent doubled that would be a good outcome for him. We keep treating this like all the residents of the city are a group, but that's not true. Renters own zero units of housing, homeowners own one unit, landlords own multiple. It's not at all guaranteed that homeowners align with renters more than with landlords.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    There is a limit to the extent which the higher property taxes are tolerable and most people aren't really investors. However, as I understand it (I am on the East Coast), in California's case your property tax is actually locked in at the time of purchase regardless of appreciation.
humanrebar 9y ago
Seems like only Bay Area homeowners lose out if big tech companies decide to stop colocating all their workers in a handful of zip codes. And they won't get much of a say in that case.
- sjg007 9y ago
  The execs like the Bay Area..
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    Good point. There's more to the preferences of executives than they might care to acknowledge.
da3mon5 9y ago
> Any pair of Roy, Harold and Tammy can get on OK - but it's just not possible for all three of them to get what they want. But this is a dilemma (or in this case a trilemma) only for individuals, "don't change the nature of this neighbourhood" shouldn't be something policymakers care about.
- ForHackernews 9y ago
  > "don't change the nature of this neighbourhood" shouldn't be something policymakers care about. Who do you think votes for those policymakers? (And donates to their campaigns)

ryanbrunner 9y ago

While there are people who oppose high-density construction in general, the writer of this article isn't necessarily among them. There's a difference between the arguments "we shouldn't build high-density housing" and "having employees' housing, shopping, and most of their other needs provided by their employer has lead to some bad things in the past".