5 ms·

Most current home owners have no interest in selling to a developer or developing ourselves. We just want to continue live in conditions that were present when

by TomVDB 9y ago

Most current home owners have no interest in selling to a developer or developing ourselves. We just want to continue live in conditions that were present when we bought it: a nice house with a garden on a quiet street. Yes, that is selfish, but I'm not going to apologize for not wanting an apartment complex next door. That said, I'm not going to vote against a state level politician who wants to relax zoning laws to improve affordable housing.

trustno1 9y ago
At least you admit you’re a selfish asshole.
Veelox 9y ago
I appreciate the reasonable honest tone.
Retric 9y ago
Changing zoning would only directly impact a tiny fraction of current home owners. High rises allow for vastly increased density so only 1-5% of the city could change to cover a 50% population increase.
davidw 9y ago
The conditions do change though, even if the buildings don't: you'll gradually be surrounded by different people as prices climb and climb. Perhaps, sooner or later, they'll look down on you as the undesirable they don't want nearby.
- TomVDB 8y ago
  Why do you make the assumption somebody is looking down on somebody else? It has nothing to do with the inhabitants. It's about the ugliness of these kind of buildings and everything that goes with increased density (traffic, street parking etc.)
  - CyberDildonics 8y ago
    I'm not clear here, do you own a townhouse or do you own everything you can see from the townhouse? You don't like the 'look' of 'ugly' building? I guess you better save up for the neighboring lots.
    - TomVDB 8y ago
      You buy a house in a nice neighborhood with nice single family houses and well kept gardens and very little traffic. You like it that way. You pay a lot for that. You don't like it when some of those houses are replaced by an apartment complex. What is there not to understand?
      - traytonwhite 8y ago
        The part where the person thinks they have some right to tell others what to do with their properly-zoned property while simultaneously refusing to pay for that right?
        zapita 8y ago
        Woah. Someone said "all homeowners benefit from increased density in their neighborhood". Tom replied that as a homeowner he didn't feel he benefited from increased density, and explained why. He didn't tell anyone what to do. What are you so upset about?
        jacobolus 8y ago
        * *
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > All homeowners benefit when the teachers, police officers, nurses, librarians, postal workers, garbage collectors, mechanics, plumbers, construction workers, retail clerks, gym trainers, restaurant servers, hairdressers, taxi drivers, artists, etc. etc. etc. can afford to live somewhere within a reasonable commute distance. No, they don't. All homeowners don't have the same utility function. Not living near people of different socio-economic strata is a very important factor in some people's utility function. > When the only people who can afford to live within 40 miles are senior software engineers, surgeons, hedge fund quants, corporate executives, and large landowners, the whole community becomes a fake and lifeless place. The features you see as “fake and lifeless” are what many people actively desire and seek out. Aesthetics are highly subjective.
sabarn01 8y ago
You own your land not the conditions that surround that land.
- TomVDB 8y ago
  That is true, and nobody claimed otherwise. But I can have the desire for the conditions to stay the same.
  - dublinben 8y ago
    We have a way for you to express that desire. You can buy the surrounding properties and keep them exactly the same. See Zuckerberg's purchases in Palo Alto for example.
    - TomVDB 8y ago
      That'd be a great example if it weren't for the fact that Zuck didn't keep things the same at all: he wants to raze the surrounding houses.
    - qihqi 8y ago
      Or you can vote municipalities that best aligns with what you desire.
- BurningFrog 8y ago
  The problem with the SF and the Bay Area is that home owners actually have fairly strong ownership rights to the land surrounding their home. At least in the sense of being able to stop anything being constructed there. You can think of it as an interesting experiment in collective land ownership. I'm using "own" meaning "control" here.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
I don't think that's any more selfish than someone wanting to move into the Bay Area from somewhere else.
- davidw 8y ago
  Moving to areas of opportunity is about the most American thing ever. Do you think everyone should just stay where they happened to be born?!
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    No, not at all. But I don't see why wanting things to stay similar to when you bought the house is any more selfish than wanting to barge yourself into an area that may not be able to absorb the additional population.
    - davidw 8y ago
      That area absolutely could 'absorb' the additional population. They just choose not to. https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-costs-tokyo https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drawbridge_mentality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drawbridge_mentality
    - kelnos 8y ago
      I think it's a bit obtuse to suggest that someone who had the luck to be born a little earlier and move into an area somehow has some sort of a natural right to keep others out through obstructionist policies, and expecting them to act with compassion is somehow selfish. But I suppose that's par for the course for the US, where individual expression and selfishness is valued over collective good.
      - asimpletune 8y ago
        Not saying my opinion one way or another, but there is definitely a “natural right” just in the simple sense of physically being present before others.
beavisthegenius 8y ago
As an SF resident, you people are ruining the city.
- TomVDB 8y ago
  I'm ruining my city because I went to a bunch of open houses, choose a house that I like in a nice neighborhood and paid (a lot) for it? That's definitely an original kind of argument.
  - namlem 8y ago
    If you in any way put pressure on the zoning board to reject new apartment buildings, then yes, you are ruining SF.
  - kelnos 8y ago
    I think the parent was referring to: homelessness on the rise, lower-income residents being forced out, the need for many service workers to transport themselves to the city because they can't afford to live here anymore, housing speculation and foreign investment leaving units empty and driving up prices, etc. All of that "changes the character of the city", IMO for the worse. One reason (of many) for these changes is obstructionist behavior toward building housing and increasing density. At least that's what I'd be referring to if I were to make the parent's argument.
    - eanzenberg 8y ago
      Homelessness is rising here because SF is open to homelessness therefore it attracts it from the rest of the country. Increasing housing supply by 50% will increase homelessness because you have 50% more people willing to financially support it.
      - rspeer 8y ago
        You'd think it wouldn't take so much effort to defend the claim "if you build enough housing, people won't be homeless", but it does. So let's go with a prominent example: Tokyo. Neighborhoods in Tokyo have no local control over zoning, and houses are widely understood to be a depreciating asset, not an investment. So Tokyo builds enough housing and homeowners can't pull up the ladder behind them. The homelessness rate in Tokyo is astonishingly low and decreasing: just 1600 people in a metropolis of 13.6 million. Almost everybody can afford to live somewhere, because there is enough housing for everybody to live somewhere. You may think I'm saying that your neighborhood has to look like the Ginza area, and I'm not saying that at all. Tokyo contains some calm, beautiful, residential-focused cities such as Setagaya. (If this is confusing: a metropolis can contain a city.)
hinkley 8y ago
How much are your property taxes these days?
- TomVDB 8y ago
  $25k per year. I don't see how that's relevant though.
  - lightedman 8y ago
    This is a classic example of 'more money than sense.' I bet that $25K you pay on your property taxes would be 1/5 that almost anywhere else, excepting maybe DC or New York. You paid too much, continue to pay too much, and are thus directly contributing to part of the problem of affordable housing.
adrianratnapala 8y ago
> I'm not going to apologize for not wanting an apartment complex next door That's reasonable. But what is not reasonable is if you try to enforce that preference on next door. Your house is your house. Your neighbours house isn't.
philliphaydon 8y ago
As Long as people can buy more than 1 home or you allow foreign investors to buy houses, housing won’t be affordable
pcwalton 8y ago
> We just want to continue live in conditions that were present when we bought it: a nice house with a garden on a quiet street. Speak for yourself. Not all homeowners want less density. I wouldn't have become a homeowner if the only houses available had yards with picket fences.
collyw 8y ago
I am pretty sure if the price was high enough they would be interested. "Everyone is a bit coin operated" as Ed Zander said when I worked at Mortorola.

by TomVDB 9y ago

trustno1 9y ago

At least you admit you’re a selfish asshole.

Veelox 9y ago

I appreciate the reasonable honest tone.

Retric 9y ago

Changing zoning would only directly impact a tiny fraction of current home owners. High rises allow for vastly increased density so only 1-5% of the city could change to cover a 50% population increase.

davidw 9y ago

The conditions do change though, even if the buildings don't: you'll gradually be surrounded by different people as prices climb and climb. Perhaps, sooner or later, they'll look down on you as the undesirable they don't want nearby.

TomVDB 8y ago
Why do you make the assumption somebody is looking down on somebody else? It has nothing to do with the inhabitants. It's about the ugliness of these kind of buildings and everything that goes with increased density (traffic, street parking etc.)
- CyberDildonics 8y ago
  I'm not clear here, do you own a townhouse or do you own everything you can see from the townhouse? You don't like the 'look' of 'ugly' building? I guess you better save up for the neighboring lots.
  - TomVDB 8y ago
    You buy a house in a nice neighborhood with nice single family houses and well kept gardens and very little traffic. You like it that way. You pay a lot for that. You don't like it when some of those houses are replaced by an apartment complex. What is there not to understand?
    - traytonwhite 8y ago
      The part where the person thinks they have some right to tell others what to do with their properly-zoned property while simultaneously refusing to pay for that right?
      - zapita 8y ago
        Woah. Someone said "all homeowners benefit from increased density in their neighborhood". Tom replied that as a homeowner he didn't feel he benefited from increased density, and explained why. He didn't tell anyone what to do. What are you so upset about?
        jacobolus 8y ago
        * *
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > All homeowners benefit when the teachers, police officers, nurses, librarians, postal workers, garbage collectors, mechanics, plumbers, construction workers, retail clerks, gym trainers, restaurant servers, hairdressers, taxi drivers, artists, etc. etc. etc. can afford to live somewhere within a reasonable commute distance. No, they don't. All homeowners don't have the same utility function. Not living near people of different socio-economic strata is a very important factor in some people's utility function. > When the only people who can afford to live within 40 miles are senior software engineers, surgeons, hedge fund quants, corporate executives, and large landowners, the whole community becomes a fake and lifeless place. The features you see as “fake and lifeless” are what many people actively desire and seek out. Aesthetics are highly subjective.

sabarn01 8y ago

You own your land not the conditions that surround that land.

TomVDB 8y ago
That is true, and nobody claimed otherwise. But I can have the desire for the conditions to stay the same.
- dublinben 8y ago
  We have a way for you to express that desire. You can buy the surrounding properties and keep them exactly the same. See Zuckerberg's purchases in Palo Alto for example.
  - TomVDB 8y ago
    That'd be a great example if it weren't for the fact that Zuck didn't keep things the same at all: he wants to raze the surrounding houses.
  - qihqi 8y ago
    Or you can vote municipalities that best aligns with what you desire.
BurningFrog 8y ago
The problem with the SF and the Bay Area is that home owners actually have fairly strong ownership rights to the land surrounding their home. At least in the sense of being able to stop anything being constructed there. You can think of it as an interesting experiment in collective land ownership. I'm using "own" meaning "control" here.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

I don't think that's any more selfish than someone wanting to move into the Bay Area from somewhere else.

davidw 8y ago
Moving to areas of opportunity is about the most American thing ever. Do you think everyone should just stay where they happened to be born?!
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  No, not at all. But I don't see why wanting things to stay similar to when you bought the house is any more selfish than wanting to barge yourself into an area that may not be able to absorb the additional population.
  - davidw 8y ago
    That area absolutely could 'absorb' the additional population. They just choose not to. https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-costs-tokyo https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drawbridge_mentality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drawbridge_mentality
  - kelnos 8y ago
    I think it's a bit obtuse to suggest that someone who had the luck to be born a little earlier and move into an area somehow has some sort of a natural right to keep others out through obstructionist policies, and expecting them to act with compassion is somehow selfish. But I suppose that's par for the course for the US, where individual expression and selfishness is valued over collective good.
    - asimpletune 8y ago
      Not saying my opinion one way or another, but there is definitely a “natural right” just in the simple sense of physically being present before others.

beavisthegenius 8y ago

As an SF resident, you people are ruining the city.

TomVDB 8y ago
I'm ruining my city because I went to a bunch of open houses, choose a house that I like in a nice neighborhood and paid (a lot) for it? That's definitely an original kind of argument.
- namlem 8y ago
  If you in any way put pressure on the zoning board to reject new apartment buildings, then yes, you are ruining SF.
- kelnos 8y ago
  I think the parent was referring to: homelessness on the rise, lower-income residents being forced out, the need for many service workers to transport themselves to the city because they can't afford to live here anymore, housing speculation and foreign investment leaving units empty and driving up prices, etc. All of that "changes the character of the city", IMO for the worse. One reason (of many) for these changes is obstructionist behavior toward building housing and increasing density. At least that's what I'd be referring to if I were to make the parent's argument.
  - eanzenberg 8y ago
    Homelessness is rising here because SF is open to homelessness therefore it attracts it from the rest of the country. Increasing housing supply by 50% will increase homelessness because you have 50% more people willing to financially support it.
    - rspeer 8y ago
      You'd think it wouldn't take so much effort to defend the claim "if you build enough housing, people won't be homeless", but it does. So let's go with a prominent example: Tokyo. Neighborhoods in Tokyo have no local control over zoning, and houses are widely understood to be a depreciating asset, not an investment. So Tokyo builds enough housing and homeowners can't pull up the ladder behind them. The homelessness rate in Tokyo is astonishingly low and decreasing: just 1600 people in a metropolis of 13.6 million. Almost everybody can afford to live somewhere, because there is enough housing for everybody to live somewhere. You may think I'm saying that your neighborhood has to look like the Ginza area, and I'm not saying that at all. Tokyo contains some calm, beautiful, residential-focused cities such as Setagaya. (If this is confusing: a metropolis can contain a city.)

hinkley 8y ago

How much are your property taxes these days?

TomVDB 8y ago
$25k per year. I don't see how that's relevant though.
- lightedman 8y ago
  This is a classic example of 'more money than sense.' I bet that $25K you pay on your property taxes would be 1/5 that almost anywhere else, excepting maybe DC or New York. You paid too much, continue to pay too much, and are thus directly contributing to part of the problem of affordable housing.

adrianratnapala 8y ago

> I'm not going to apologize for not wanting an apartment complex next door That's reasonable. But what is not reasonable is if you try to enforce that preference on next door. Your house is your house. Your neighbours house isn't.

philliphaydon 8y ago

As Long as people can buy more than 1 home or you allow foreign investors to buy houses, housing won’t be affordable

pcwalton 8y ago

> We just want to continue live in conditions that were present when we bought it: a nice house with a garden on a quiet street. Speak for yourself. Not all homeowners want less density. I wouldn't have become a homeowner if the only houses available had yards with picket fences.

collyw 8y ago

I am pretty sure if the price was high enough they would be interested. "Everyone is a bit coin operated" as Ed Zander said when I worked at Mortorola.