5 ms·

We all need shelter - I cannot argue with that. However, we all don’t need shelter in the Bay Area. There is a great sense of entitlement in thinking that anyon

by prklmn 9y ago

We all need shelter - I cannot argue with that. However, we all don’t need shelter in the Bay Area. There is a great sense of entitlement in thinking that anyone should be able to move to any city they so choose and live comfortably. Pick a different city to find opportunity if you can’t afford to move to San Francisco. Space is at a premium, it’s no secret. I’m not against development in general, but in the case where you buy a piece of property in an area on the premise that there are 5 other homes in the area, and then artificially, as you say, 3 homes replace what used to be 1 home for a total of 7 homes, I wouldn’t be happy, and neither would you.

asabjorn 9y ago
For the character to change a large percentage of landowners need to decide to meet the demand by building new housing or increasing density. Why is it reasonable for possibly a minority of landowners to limit a large percentage of other landowners from changing the use of their land to meet demand? Especially if a voting majority desire the change in density?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- prklmn 9y ago
  It’s reasonable because that how land ownership works. It appears that perhaps you are not in favor of the principals that come along with land ownership, like zoning. Put yourself in the position of a landowner. You buy a house (the largest investment you’ll ever make) in an area zoned for single family homes. Then along comes a tech boom/bubble and your home goes way up in value. Awesome, you made a great investment. But now the city has become overpopulated and someone wants wants to build a 60 story apartment building a block away from your house in the area zoned for single family homes because people feel entitled to live in San Francisco and change the zoning laws to allow them to build more housing. Well, tough day for you, parking is a nightmare now, traffic is a mess, oh and by the way the value of your most valuable asset, your home, was just halved. In reality if they do start building up the city extensively, the bubble will have burst by the time the housing capacity is much higher and people won’t want to live there at that time anyway, they’ll move somewhere cheaper - just my two cents.
  - asabjorn 9y ago
    Zoning has its uses, but the core of your argument seem to rest on a belief that cities should not rezone because it violates some agreement. I am not aware of any such agreement in law or moral codes, although I do appreciate the sentimental attachment to what was when things inevitably change. Quite to the contrary rezoning is a normal way for cities to respond to changes in needs. You do however have a right to decide over your own land and to negotiate with other interests on changes to zoning rules, and I wholeheartedly support that. Considering that land value has generally risen with density in western society and the economic drivers denser cities have become, I do not think your argument that higher density reduces monetary land value holds up to scrutiny.
  - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
    What this article is describing is the opposite of how land ownership works. A Berkley land owner decided they wanted to build something on their land that would satisfy the zoning requirements. Their neighbors didn't like it, so they lobbied the city government to ignore the zoning requirements and not let them build it.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    >parking is a nightmare now, traffic is a mess Good. Your sense of entitlement to drive and park everywhere all the time does not and should not outrank other people's need to live where there are jobs (or, for that matter, the long-term viability of the planet). >by the way the value of your most valuable asset, your home, was just halved. I couldn't think of a brighter public policy success story than redistributing the unearned income of the landed aristocracy to people who are trying to make a living. If we build enough for the newcomers, at worst you're going to see returns at parity with inflation. Am I supposed to be sympathetic that you were thwarted from profiteering on a shortage?
    - prklmn 9y ago
      It sounds like you're against the idea of land ownership, so there's no logic that could change your thinking. Also, it's laughable that you think that 64% of the country can be considered "aristocracy."

by prklmn 9y ago

asabjorn 9y ago

For the character to change a large percentage of landowners need to decide to meet the demand by building new housing or increasing density. Why is it reasonable for possibly a minority of landowners to limit a large percentage of other landowners from changing the use of their land to meet demand? Especially if a voting majority desire the change in density?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
prklmn 9y ago
It’s reasonable because that how land ownership works. It appears that perhaps you are not in favor of the principals that come along with land ownership, like zoning. Put yourself in the position of a landowner. You buy a house (the largest investment you’ll ever make) in an area zoned for single family homes. Then along comes a tech boom/bubble and your home goes way up in value. Awesome, you made a great investment. But now the city has become overpopulated and someone wants wants to build a 60 story apartment building a block away from your house in the area zoned for single family homes because people feel entitled to live in San Francisco and change the zoning laws to allow them to build more housing. Well, tough day for you, parking is a nightmare now, traffic is a mess, oh and by the way the value of your most valuable asset, your home, was just halved. In reality if they do start building up the city extensively, the bubble will have burst by the time the housing capacity is much higher and people won’t want to live there at that time anyway, they’ll move somewhere cheaper - just my two cents.
- asabjorn 9y ago
  Zoning has its uses, but the core of your argument seem to rest on a belief that cities should not rezone because it violates some agreement. I am not aware of any such agreement in law or moral codes, although I do appreciate the sentimental attachment to what was when things inevitably change. Quite to the contrary rezoning is a normal way for cities to respond to changes in needs. You do however have a right to decide over your own land and to negotiate with other interests on changes to zoning rules, and I wholeheartedly support that. Considering that land value has generally risen with density in western society and the economic drivers denser cities have become, I do not think your argument that higher density reduces monetary land value holds up to scrutiny.
- TheCoelacanth 9y ago
  What this article is describing is the opposite of how land ownership works. A Berkley land owner decided they wanted to build something on their land that would satisfy the zoning requirements. Their neighbors didn't like it, so they lobbied the city government to ignore the zoning requirements and not let them build it.
- closeparen 9y ago
  >parking is a nightmare now, traffic is a mess Good. Your sense of entitlement to drive and park everywhere all the time does not and should not outrank other people's need to live where there are jobs (or, for that matter, the long-term viability of the planet). >by the way the value of your most valuable asset, your home, was just halved. I couldn't think of a brighter public policy success story than redistributing the unearned income of the landed aristocracy to people who are trying to make a living. If we build enough for the newcomers, at worst you're going to see returns at parity with inflation. Am I supposed to be sympathetic that you were thwarted from profiteering on a shortage?
  - prklmn 9y ago
    It sounds like you're against the idea of land ownership, so there's no logic that could change your thinking. Also, it's laughable that you think that 64% of the country can be considered "aristocracy."