3 ms·

I agree about your assessment of the article, but I think you've missed the question of the right abstraction. Why does SF/Bay area need affordable housing? Sur

by T2_t2 9y ago

I agree about your assessment of the article, but I think you've missed the question of the right abstraction. Why does SF/Bay area need affordable housing? Sure, the world needs affordable housing, but why does the Bay Area? Why is the right level for affordable housing the region, and not the state or the country or, heck, in the other direction the suburb or street? Why is this city region the correct abstraction? We've reached a point where certain places - London, NYC, San Francisco, Singapore, Hong Kong and perhaps even Shanghai - are so large and economically important that the idea they should include affordable housing, when there are alternatives that are much more financially effective, seems a little off to me. I'm not sure why anyone would want to live in affordable housing in SF, when everything is so expensive. Wouldn't it make more sense to move whole family groups to Portland, for the same prices as one of those families could live in SF? Not even that far, to Oakland maybe, or the outskirts. And why is the right abstraction one house? A policy of whole family moves, or community moves so people keep their connections, would seem like a more sensible idea. People stay in areas that are awful often because they don't want to lose those connections - which I 100% get. So why not move groups of people - willingly - so they have the best of both worlds?

wpietri 9y ago
It's not the correct abstraction. We can pursue affordable housing on all of those levels of abstraction. Your theory that we should move all the poor people in groups to less appealing areas to make room for the incoming rich is horrific to me. Especially since, in America at least, this will often effectively be government-sponsored ethnic cleansing.
erikpukinskis 9y ago
For what it’s worth, the U.S. is built on the strategy of pushing people who grew up on a piece of ok land onto shittier and shittier land to make way for settlers, until the displaced people are in such remote, harsh places that they can barely survive. So there is precedent for what you’re proposing. But the argument against it is that people have some sort of right to remain in their “homeland”. And that a city whose “native sons” can’t afford to live in it isn’t a healthy city. That a healthy city has places for both rich and poor. For owners and operators. For speculators and locals.
wcunning 9y ago
The reason you need to do it on the regional level is that you need to provide services that people are willing to pay for. I don't want to pay $35 for a burger because the waiter/waitress needs to make $100k/year or commute in 4.5 hours each way. I want a mix of high end and more moderate/casual dining options in my area, and that's only possible if people can live a "commutable" distance away from my neighborhood bar with the cheap burgers. This extends to every other service you expect or desire in reasonable distance from your job/house -- garbage truck driver, barber/stylist, grocery store checkout workers/stockers, etc.

by T2_t2 9y ago

wpietri 9y ago

It's not the correct abstraction. We can pursue affordable housing on all of those levels of abstraction. Your theory that we should move all the poor people in groups to less appealing areas to make room for the incoming rich is horrific to me. Especially since, in America at least, this will often effectively be government-sponsored ethnic cleansing.

erikpukinskis 9y ago

For what it’s worth, the U.S. is built on the strategy of pushing people who grew up on a piece of ok land onto shittier and shittier land to make way for settlers, until the displaced people are in such remote, harsh places that they can barely survive. So there is precedent for what you’re proposing. But the argument against it is that people have some sort of right to remain in their “homeland”. And that a city whose “native sons” can’t afford to live in it isn’t a healthy city. That a healthy city has places for both rich and poor. For owners and operators. For speculators and locals.

wcunning 9y ago

The reason you need to do it on the regional level is that you need to provide services that people are willing to pay for. I don't want to pay $35 for a burger because the waiter/waitress needs to make $100k/year or commute in 4.5 hours each way. I want a mix of high end and more moderate/casual dining options in my area, and that's only possible if people can live a "commutable" distance away from my neighborhood bar with the cheap burgers. This extends to every other service you expect or desire in reasonable distance from your job/house -- garbage truck driver, barber/stylist, grocery store checkout workers/stockers, etc.