4 ms·
I think “overeducated, underemployed hipsters” would cover activists of many different political stripes. But I disagree that upzoning is desired mainly by peop
by yonran 9y ago
I think “overeducated, underemployed hipsters” would cover activists of many different political stripes. But I disagree that upzoning is desired mainly by people who want to live here due to their urban identity. Many of the people who stay in the Bay Area do so because their family is here. Many of the people who migrate to the Bay Area come for economic opportunities. And if you tell people to follow their parents’ “housing ladder,” I think it is also fair to recognize and fix the ways in which the ladder has stopped working in the Bay Area.
I agree that parkland should be preserved. But communities that preserve a lot of park land should be even more eager to upzone residential land to accommodate regional growth needs. If a city wants to preserve land from development but refuses to upzone to make the remaining housing accessible, then this is indistinguishable from an exclusive gated community and I don’t think I would call it progressive.
Edit: Also, I don’t think I agree with your “very rational arbitrage strategy” point. If my city provides jobs, amenities, and increasingly upscale housing while a town an hour away provides housing for the service workers, I don’t think the existence of the arbitraging town would reduce the moral responsibilities of the city in any way.
- rsync 9y ago"I think “overeducated, underemployed hipsters” would cover activists of many different political stripes. But I disagree that upzoning is desired mainly by people who want to live here due to their urban identity." I'm not so much referring to upzoning which, in general, I am in favor of. I am referring to the much more general notion that I deserve to live anywhere at prices that preserve my relaxed lifestyle and refined tastes. This is false. I am open minded about housing being a basic human right. However, I am flabbergasted by the ridiculous notion that anyone deserves to live in any particular place. "If a city wants to preserve land from development but refuses to upzone to make the remaining housing accessible, then this is indistinguishable from an exclusive gated community and I don’t think I would call it progressive." You're correct. It is an exclusive community and it's not necessarily progressive in that manner. There is a place for exclusive communities and they are not necessarily negative.
- sharkmerry 9y ago>> I am referring to the much more general notion that I deserve to live anywhere at prices that preserve my relaxed lifestyle and refined tastes. This is false. I dont think i saw anyone argue that. Do you have a source? >> (I live in Marin County, in the SFBA, and I employ quite a few service workers from Sonoma/CC/Napa counties) How long are some of your service workers commutes?
- kiliantics 9y ago> I am open minded about housing being a basic human right. However, I am flabbergasted by the ridiculous notion that anyone deserves to live in any particular place. This kind of thinking is what leads to insulated wealthy neighbourhoods with good schools, amenities and low pollution. If everyone with access to nice stuff thinks this way, they just push poor people into the only other areas which are left, like down near the local power plant, where the air and water and soil have been ruined. This sort of shit is how Flint happens and how "bad neighbourhoods" stay bad neighbourhoods for generation upon generation. That is, until some investor sees an opportunity to gentrify and pushes the poor people to a new and shittier part of town if not completely out of town altogether.