38 ms·

Stripe to donate $1M to California Yimby

544 points by dcgudeman 8y ago

Endama 8y ago
Housing a persistent issue that comes up a lot on HN. It seems to me that as tech-workers, we feel the guilt associated with economic pressure adversely affecting the civic-environment we coexist in but strangely feel that it is inappropriate (inconvenient?) to take part in the political machinery that addresses these tragedy-of-the-commons-type problems. Perhaps there is a collective disillusion with how slow building civic-consensus is (i.e. too much bureaucracy). For those who may feel this way, I strongly encourage your support of political action groups like YIMBY. They provide a low-cost way for you to associate yourself with a group of people focused on trying to fix NIMBY forces within the housing market.
- zapita 8y ago
  Also make sure to reward politicians who support Yimbi and other pro-housing policies. For example London Breed and Jeff Sheehy are both endorsed by Yimbi. If housing is important to you, make sure to take these endorsements into account in the upcoming election.
  - bsimpson 8y ago
    I wish SF had a better mayoral candidate. I feel like I'm stuck choosing between sane housing policy (Breed) or sane bike/transit policy (Kim). And I'm sure there are plenty of other dimensions where they're both bad.
    - zapita 8y ago
      In my opinion housing comes first. Breed's bike policy seemed reasonable but maybe I missed something? The most critical transit issues are at the scale of the Bay area, and the SF mayor doesn't have the authority or budgets to solve them alone. That will require strong action at the state level, or the emergence of a new layer of government with the mandate and budgets to bypass the petty squabbles of cities and impose a sane bay area transit infrastructure development roadmap. One can dream...
      - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
        >That will require strong action at the state level, or the emergence of a new layer of government with the mandate and budgets to bypass the petty squabbles of cities and impose a sane bay area transit infrastructure development roadmap. One can dream... Controlling what people can and can't build on their property at the city level was created to prevent the same problems that exist on the city level back when they were on the neighborhood level. I don't see state or county level zoning as anything more than recursion that will just keep bringing the problem to a different level without solving it. The fundamental issue is that people are not allowed to or the regulations make it economically impossible to build housing at high density. I don't think adding another layer of bureaucracy will make it easier to build the necessary density of housing.
        zapita 8y ago
        I'm not talking about housing or zoning (although in some cases state intervention can be useful there too, for different reasons), I'm talking about transit. The bay area mass transit infrastructure is a joke, it is nowhere near the level required to support its growth in population and economic activity. We need more intercity mass transit, and bay area cities have a clear track record of being incapable of building them through collaboration. They need an authority above them to make the calls and provide the funds. That is how other successful urban mega-hubs do it: Tokyo, Paris, Amsterdam, etc.
    - jdavis703 8y ago
      She actually has a fairly good track record and platform on mobility: https://medium.com/@LondonBreed/transportation-that-works-for-everyone-bd376b37279d https://medium.com/@LondonBreed/transportation-that-works-fo.... I wish she had come out with this post much earlier, but better late than never.
    - Decade 8y ago
      The tipping point for me is to consider how they do their work. London Breed is trying to make San Francisco a city for everyone, and she does not let personal feelings get in the way of good policy. Jane Kim may know how to say the right things, but get on her bad side and she will abandon your policy and destroy your company’s projects.
    - bytematic 8y ago
      This is cute. You should see the candidates in my hometown, reddest district in Wisconsin.
  - golemiprague 8y ago
    That's one of the reasons I like Trump, as someone who come from the industry he is advocating policies to make it easier to build.
  - jekdoce 8y ago
    Is there a list of Bay Area local politicians voting record/views on housing? Seems like a good first step in terms of organizing to vote for people that are pro building.
- pchristensen 8y ago
  I think more people discussing housing on HN are angry at the entrenched, intractable housing and local government cartel that is making housing so expensive. Tech workers are paid well, but a) home ownership is lower in CA + NY, b) home ownership is lower in big cities, c) home ownership skews older to begin with and that has been increasing over time, d) HN skews young and is largely people in big cities, so it's safe to assume that lots of readers are sending a big chunk of that big fat tech money to a landlord. The housing fight is largely older, wealthier, entrenched, long-term owners vs younger newcomers who haven't been able to put down roots. It's no surprise that it has been a political rout. I wish the YIMBYs well. The numbers could be on their side but the structure of the political contest is not.
  - Epenthesis 8y ago
    Wait, why would “sending a big chunk of that fat tech money to a landlord” make someone not interested in fixing the housing crisis?
    - pchristensen 8y ago
      I'm saying that's why many urban tech workers are angry about housing policy, as opposed to the parent comment that suggested they feel guilty about it.
      - landryraccoon 8y ago
        Anger doesnt change anything. Activism, involvement and donations do. Young tech workers have energy, money (compared to their peers) and incentive to change the system. If they won’t act, they suffer more than anyone else.
        lorenzq 8y ago
        Tech workers are still a minority in the bay area.
- fierro 8y ago
  This could not be more true
- dmitrygr 8y ago
  > trying to fix NIMBY forces This is probably bad word choice. If not, why is it that you feel you need to "fix" others' opinions? You believe A, they believe B (B != A). Neither needs to be fixed. They just differ. [bring on the disagreement downvotes, my point stands!]
  - ixtli 8y ago
    I think opinion is not a great word to use because while, yes, people have opinions that inform their world views this is a question of action. Inaction reinforces the status quo, which is bad, and "YIMBY" people believe they have a prescription for those undesirable conditions. I guess if you accept the premise that housing is in crisis then it's not ultimately about what you believe, per say, it's about deciding on what to do. From there I think it's easy to imagine that proponents may diagnose the opposition as having drawn incorrect conclusions about the world around them that need rectifying.
    - dmitrygr 8y ago
      > if you accept the premise that housing is in crisis s/accept/believe/g
      - ixtli 8y ago
        I mean I think you know what i'm getting at here. This seems like needless hairsplitting, tbh: you either accept/believe/admit/conclude/concede that premise or you don't.
  - pascalxus 8y ago
    some of Their opinions are based on mis-information (for example: that fixing housing would increase traffic, when actually the opposite is true, or that increasing the supply of housing increases prices, etc - there's an enormous amount of misinformation out there). It's like back in the 60s when people were told Smoking was healthy. many changed their opinion about smoking when they found out it wasn't actually healthy. this is why, the opinions need "fixing"
- ixtli 8y ago
  In my experience it's not that people feel as though it's inappropriate to participate in political machinery. They believe that "politics" are inefficient and, as such, a waste of their time. I believe the incorrect notion that "politics" can (or should be) avoided is to blame here.
  - erikpukinskis 8y ago
    Politics can be avoided. Instead of asking for the system to do something for you, you just find a way to achieve your goals by whatever means necessary. You just think of the law as a machine to be hacked. It’s illegal to sell raw milk. I could try to convince some legislators that it’s important (not likely) or just find a way way to operate a raw milk business that doesn’t involve sales. Some problems may be temporary insoluable, but I find I have plenty of problems to solve. No use worrying about the ones that are fundamentally at odds with statutes.
    - ixtli 8y ago
      I accept this as an ideological position, though I disagree with it. I'm not sure this is the best medium to wade into the specifics but tl;r: I have found that the really interesting problems require working together with other people and sometimes to do so you must act against your own immediate self interests. I also think this type of extreme individualism starts to fall apart when someone starts to act in a way that causes you or others indirect harm and you want to get them to stop. That said laws are the programming language of our society! People should never imagine them to be anything else. I think, and I don't mean this in an aggressive way, that when you talk about "hacking" laws you're simply engaging in politics :) Albeit with a starkly different ideological grounding and aesthetics. The reason I put that word in quotes in the comment you responded to was to imply suspicion about reductive definitions of the term that seem to categorize it only as "something that happens on the senate floor."
- zjaffee 8y ago
  I have to disagree with this statement. Tech workers may feel the guilt, but many of the YIMBYs have no care in the world for the people they may be displacing, are in favor of removing rent control because it would then give poorer residents the skin in the game needed for them to demand more housing. I can go on and on about this. Yes NIMBYism is a problem, but this goes well beyond the more market rate housing debate, people being against public transit improvements, housing for the homeless, and clinic for drug addicts are ones that come to mind.
  - epistasis 8y ago
    That is definitely not true at all the leadership level (ie podcasts, official communications. In my experience it's not at all true at the local either. However, it is a common mischaracterization by outsiders that reflexively oppose YIMBY. For a while, it was common to say that YIMBYs opposes BMR and affordable housing in general, which is completely untrue. I guess it's shifted now to say that YIMBYs are pro-gentrification instead, which is absolutely counter to any high level communication or leadership discussion I've heard, or any local desires. If you have links to such statements, or people that I can talk to, I'd love to jump in on that discussion and point out with documentation how that supposed YIMBY is not representing a YIMBY viewpoint.
    - zjaffee 8y ago
      Yes, the group California Yimby supports these things, but it absolutely hurts the Yimby movements credibility where they have allows people who spew the "Luxury housing will trickle prices down to the poor" shpiel are given a platform by them to display their beliefs. At best, any new construction that impacts costs will just lead to more upper middle class tech workers being in the bay area while continuing with the current pace of displacement we've seen already. YIMBYism isn't pro gentrification, but those who are pro gentrification will always be YIMBYs. And I can't provide direct links, just this sort of thing is all over YIMBY/NIMBY/PHIMBY facebook and twitter.
      - epistasis 8y ago
- pm90 8y ago
  Tech workers can generally find private sector jobs that pay an incredible amount of money. This naturally discourages them from seeking Government jobs which tend to pay less (and most of the times have an inflexible, bureaucratic nature). But I agree with participation in that we should be voting and funding political programs that we believe in.
- pascalxus 8y ago
  I don't think it has anything to do with guilt. Housing costs affect people across the entire income spectrum. those paid the least have few if no options other than to win the housing lottery. Those paid the most, will also pay the most for housing too: because those jobs are only in places where houses are more than 2 million a piece. It' a problem for everyone who doesn't own a house yet.
- mleonhard 8y ago
  SF YIMBY endorses London Breed for Mayor. You can volunteer to help get her elected: """ Phone Banking: This is one of the best ways to get out the vote, and a really nice opportunity to chat with other San Franciscans. We'll be phone banking every Tuesday & Thursday from 6 - 8:30 at YIMBY headquarters (1260 Mission St) from now through the 31st to help get out the vote for London. May 12th Event: Campaign event with YIMBY & London Saturday May 12, 11:30-1:30 at the Mission Bay food trucks near the ballpark. (601 Mission Bay Blvd) Slate Card: A great tool for talking with your friends about the YIMBY's endorsements for the June ballot. Available on our website, here: https://yimbyaction.org/endorsements/ https://yimbyaction.org/endorsements/ Ballots go out next week and we'd love your help getting the word about the election - hope you can join us! """
davidw 8y ago
This makes sense for companies to back: how many billions of their investors dollars just go straight to rent?
- no_one_ever 8y ago
  But once those dollars are given to the employees, why does it matter where they end up? Why would a company care if it goes to a mortgage or rent?
  - davidw 8y ago
    Because if more $$$ are in the employees pockets, the employees are easier to attract and happier, and the company is more competitive.
  - zasz 8y ago
    Because high rents cancel out the benefits of a high salary. It's simple arithmetic. Why give up 30k of a 100k salary to work and live in SF, when I could give up 10k of an 90k salary in Austin instead? (These are just illustrative figures.) And the high price of housing means that even tech workers who want families can't afford the space to raise them.
    - no_one_ever 8y ago
      My case is interesting. I have big student loan payments that don't adjust to my income or salary. I feel tethered to high CoL areas because those areas offer higher salaries with more take-home income, despite a higher median rent. The best balance for me is a high salary in a low CoL so I don't burn my take-home on rent, but I'd rather be given a larger salary, spend some more on rent, and have more money left over to pay off my debt.
      - zasz 8y ago
        What about working remotely?
    - 8y ago
pc 8y ago
Stripe cofounder here. This is an issue that I know a lot of HN readers care about and I'd encourage anyone interested to get involved. (Feel free to reach out to CA YIMBY, your local representatives, or any of the other organizations doing good work in the field.) Bad housing policy is one of the biggest impediments to overall economic growth[1] and to individual economic opportunity[2][3] in the US. Our current restrictive policies disproportionately hurt poorer, younger, and (frequently) non-white[4] people. I really hope we can change them. [1] https://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/chang-tai.hsieh/research/growth.pdf https://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/chang-tai.hsieh/research/gr... [2] https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/83656/2000907-strategies-for-increasing-housing-supply-in-high-cost-cities-dc-case-study_1.pdf https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/83656/... [3] From the Obama administration: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/Housing_Development_Toolkit%20f.2.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images... [4] https://www.amazon.com/Color-Law-Forgotten-Government-Segregated/dp/1631492853 https://www.amazon.com/Color-Law-Forgotten-Government-Segreg...
- davidw 8y ago
  I can't say thank you enough! California's housing policies have repercusions even way up here in Bend, Oregon: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/back-againbend-oregon-matt-abrams/?published=t https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/back-againbend-oregon-matt-ab... The articles and book you cite are excellent ones, and I'd highly recommend them to anyone interested in this issue. I have a bunch more here, too: https://bendyimby.com/2017/06/12/yimby-reading/ https://bendyimby.com/2017/06/12/yimby-reading/
  - pchristensen 8y ago
    I used to live in Dublin, CA outside of SF, and there was a big housing boom there. I said that SF could turn off Dublin's housing boom with one vote. The entire Western US is in the same position with CA - every good place to live west of the Rockies is inundated with people leaving CA, many carrying CA housing wealth with them.
    - 8y ago
toomuchtodo 8y ago
@pc: Any consideration to closing your SoMo office (similar to what Automattic did [1]) and migrating towards a fully remote org? That would improve the quality of life of your workers currently required to be near SF by allowing them to relocate to lower cost of living areas, as changing California housing policy and seeing the results in lower housing costs due to denser construction is going to take decades [2]. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/automattic-closes-san-francisco-office-to-let-everyone-work-remotely-2017-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/automattic-closes-san-francis... [2] http://www.sfexaminer.com/solve-affordability-crisis-bay-area-housing-stock-must-grow-50-percent-20-years/ http://www.sfexaminer.com/solve-affordability-crisis-bay-are... Disclosure: Worked for a popular and well run fully remote startup for two years.
- rifung 8y ago
  > That would improve the quality of life of your workers currently required to be near SF by allowing them to relocate to lower cost of living areas I don't think you can assume that people would consider this to be an improvement in overall quality of life, especially when many (or most?) current employees joined the companies presumably knowing they would work in SF. I personally enjoy seeing my coworkers in person and I know others on my team have requested more face time with coworkers in other offices.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    As long as you are comfortable knowing this problem won’t be fixed for you, but maybe your kids, that’s a fine stance to take. It’s reasonable you spend your money as you choose. It’s irrational for a company to pay you more to be in SF when they can pay talent less that chooses to live elsewhere.
    - landryraccoon 8y ago
      > It’s irrational for a company to pay you more to be in SF when they can pay talent less that chooses to live elsewhere. There’s almost no way its true that they can get the same talent for less elsewhere. You’re arguing that somehow every major tech company is simultaneously irrationally acting against their own very strong profit motives.
frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
So one thing I always have trouble with on this debate is that it feels totally one-sided. There's smart people on the YIMBY side making the case for building. But then NIMBYs are always portrayed as a caricature of the self-interested rich guy. So I read this article and then I click through to http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-housing-bill-failure-equity-groups-20180502-story.html http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-housing-bill-failu... this article and I see lots of poor people opposed SB 827 as well. But even then there isn't really a strong op-ed or anything like that making the case against YIMBY. Where do I go to read that? If you're a YIMBY what's the toughest NIMBY article or argument you've come across?
- ng12 8y ago
  The arguments I've come across fall into three buckets: neighborhood character, traffic/infrastructure, and (my personal favorite) supply and demand doesn't apply to housing. I suspect the real root is a fear of change mixed with greed.
- zasz 8y ago
  The best I can find of the SB827 opponents is statements like this: http://www.dsa-la.org/statement_in_opposition_to_sb_827 http://www.dsa-la.org/statement_in_opposition_to_sb_827 The anti-development left is, for a variety of reasons, not terribly visible. Poor people of color lack visibility in the first place, and so do the more extreme leftists. So you multiply those together, and you're not going to get a movement that commands a lot of attention. The other issue with finding unified op-eds against YIMBYs is that these battles are literally fought building by building. If you really want a detailed look at the debates that showcases both sides, you'll have to start reading more local news. NIMBYs are generally quite happy to acknowledge that there's a statewide housing crisis, but they'll refuse to build anything in their own neighborhoods. NIMBYs don't need to be a unified force to get their way. Whereas, YIMBYs seeking to enact statewide change via bills like SB827 do.
  - nerfhammer 8y ago
    Poor people of color don't oppose development, it's mostly upper middle class whites: "77% of Latinos, 69% of African Americans, and 64% of Asian Americans support building more housing in their local areas, compared with 53% of whites.” http://www.ppic.org/publication/californians-and-housing-affordability/ http://www.ppic.org/publication/californians-and-housing-aff...
jakelarkin 8y ago
California and the Bay Area is so screwed. The Powers-that-be looked at SB827 like it was the work of lunatics, and did not engage in any of the significant concessions that were made. The bill was completely impotent at the end ... local demolition control + 4-5 story buildings. It drew no interest nor alternative proposals to actually help solve the housing crisis. So yeah we're going to end up with middle class social housing lotteries, 1.5 hour commutes and crazy inflation of basic service costs ($3k/month child care, anyone?). Every neighborhood can't be a wealthy enclave of SFH. There is literally no where to live in the central Bay Area on teachers salary much less a Social Security Disability paycheck. The homelessness epidemic will grow. It's a rentier economy of land owners and the rent-controlled incumbents. How "Progressive".
- tomkarlo 8y ago
  You can substitute "Bay Area" with many of the major centers in the US at this point - Seattle, LA, Denver, Austin all have the same issues, they're just a few years behind the Bay. We need fixes to zoning and development rules and tax laws, they help cities be more liveable as it will help everyone. Cities overseas have figured this out, to some degree - rent as a % of income is lower in both Europe and Asia, generally, and it's a lot easier to build effective mass transit when housing densities are a bit higher. The single family home is one of the worst things to happen to the US, and it's slowly killing us with traffic and spiraling housing prices.
  - loeg 8y ago
    > You can substitute "Bay Area" with many of the major centers in the US at this point - Seattle, LA, Denver, Austin all have the same issues, they're just a few years behind the Bay. Not the same issues. Seattle doesn't have anything like Prop 13, or nearly as bad height restrictions. City residents and council are much more supportive of upzoning than SFBA — as in, it actually happens.[0] Plenty of actual issues, and development still lags demand. But the situation is not nearly as dire as SFBA, and it's not getting worse quite as fast. [0]: https://seattle.curbed.com/2017/11/9/16629248/seattle-hala-mha-upzone-plan https://seattle.curbed.com/2017/11/9/16629248/seattle-hala-m...
ThomPete 8y ago
If you are in California I would suggest you look up Michael Schellenberger. He is a democrat running for office and pro Nuclear. Here is a good interview with him where he lays out some of his opinions on amongst other things the problem with NIMBY. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-7DIv3AU1o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-7DIv3AU1o
throwaway4711 8y ago
For context, moves like this are self-serving for the tech companies based in SF. Their interest is to have access to the tech talent fueling their growth.
rb808 8y ago
California is already is the state with the largest population by a long way. Sure you could squeeze a few more million into the bay area but SF has geographic restrictions, esp with water. Surely it would be smarter to encourage more tech firms to move to places where there is more space, like Denver, Chicago, Austin. Basically anywhere off the coasts. Just give on on SF already.
- davidw 8y ago
  The city of Tokyo added more housing than the entire state of California in 2014: https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-costs-tokyo https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-... Also, no, California really isn't that crowded. Italy has something like 30% more people on less land, and still manages to be a massive tourist destination because it is amazingly wonderful and beautiful, from the mountains to the cities to the seashores.
  - freehunter 8y ago
    And Tokyo is in a huge water crisis and could very soon run out of fresh drinking water for all of their citizens. California, with substantially fewer people moving in, is already in a water shortage. Do you think they can support Toyko-style housing numbers? I say this as someone who lives in the one of the states that West Coast politicians want to steal the water from. Instead of shipping our water across the country to feed the desert, you can... you know... just move here. So the water is fed back where it came from.
    - davidw 8y ago
      Most of the water in CA goes to agricultural uses if I'm not mistaken. Denser cities are far more efficient in environmental terms: no lawns, less fossil fuel usage and so on. Sure, some jobs will go elsewhere, but there are big returns to being where everyone else is. This book does a good job explaining why: https://amzn.to/2KymJj6 https://amzn.to/2KymJj6
    - jakelarkin 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
throwaway84742 8y ago
Enough money to sway 0.5 a typical SV household.
- almost_usual 8y ago
  Enough money to sway 0.1 a typical Bay Area native multi home owner.
maym86 8y ago
Investing in better public transportation is important too so that people can live further away from the city and commute in a reasonable time. http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/03/14/bay-area-cities-outrank-l-a-on-list-of-longest-commutes-in-u-s/ http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/03/14/bay-area-cities-...
- lewis500 8y ago
  better public transportation would only alleviate the problem if it goes to places where additional supply gets built. otherwise it will just drive up prices in the places to which it adds accessibility. imagine a teleporter in stockton that goes anywhere in the bay. unless stockton allows additional housing near the teleporter, it will just become even more expensive than san francisco.
  - ch4s3 8y ago
    > better public transportation would only alleviate the problem if it goes to places where additional supply gets built. You have to have zoning that allows density around transit hubs, which NIMBYs oppose. So, I think you have to have the housing fight regardless.
  - maym86 8y ago
    Who said anything about teleporters? Edit: My point is that a train is not a teleporter. A train spreads population density over a larger area, with multiple stops and takes more time to move people than an imaginary sci-fi device. The comparison is not fair and pointless. Why not just talk about how trains would work instead of using an imprecise analogy.
    - groby_b 8y ago
      A teleporter is the spherical cow of transportation - it allows for simplified thought experiments. Replace with "a bus line to"/"a train to", the outcome is the same. Unless places with connection to the public transportation system build more housing, prices there will just be driven up as well. (Housing shortage in the Bay is that bad)
zjaffee 8y ago
If you believe housing prices are a core problem to the growth of your business why continue to grow in the bay area rather than try and move to a less expensive region of the country? Massive growth in the SF housing supply is just politically infeasible at this time, a million dollar donation won't change that.
- ch4s3 8y ago
  > less expensive region of the country I don't live in CA, but I get why people want to. Where would you propose? Where else has a strong economy, good universities, nice weather, a well educated/talented work force, legal frameworks amenable to tech, good food, and interesting culture? There just aren't a lot of candidates, and if everyone moves hypothetically and never grapples with NIMBY policy, they'll just bring the problem with them.
  - zcdziura 8y ago
    Off the top of my head, I can think of two places: Raleigh, NC and Austin, TX.
    - tmh79 8y ago
      they're both undergoing a housing crises right now
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Nashville, TN, Research Triangle Park in NC, Austin/San Antonio, TX with Tampa/Orlando, FL coming in as runner up as growing tech hubs.
    - ng12 8y ago
      A quick googling of `${city} housing crisis`: https://www.nashville.gov/Portals/0/SiteContent/Human%20Realations%20Commission/docs/publications/HousingGuide.pdf https://www.nashville.gov/Portals/0/SiteContent/Human%20Real... https://www.wral.com/officials-describe-wake-county-as-affordable-housing-desert-crisis/17114070/ https://www.wral.com/officials-describe-wake-county-as-affor... https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2018-02-02/whose-affordability-crisis/ https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2018-02-02/whose-afford... https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2018/03/15/orlandos-affordable-housing-crisis-is-about-to-implode https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2018/03/15/orla...
dang 8y ago
There's also https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180503005513/en/Stripe-1-Million-Contribution-California-YIMBY-Support https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180503005513/en/Str... (via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16988367 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16988367), which contains a bit more info, albeit in a press release.
jadedhacker 8y ago
YIMBYism, that is, additions to housing stock made by private developers, is a false fix. The idea that additional housing stock is needed is correct, but the idea that more and more powerful landlords and developers will create space for vulnerable people is plainly wrong. More luxury condos, buildings rented by foreign investors that never occupy them as a place to park money, and all the problems of the powerful setting the agenda for everyone develops. Instead, we need public housing, strict regulation, and yes more units built at the behest of the state.
- davidw 8y ago
  Plenty of YIMBYs are fine with "do both!": more market rate housing supply, and more subsidized housing for those who can't afford the former. The more of the former you produce, the more you can concentrate the latter on the truly needy, and not people like teachers, firefighters and so on who have good jobs that are important to society.
  - bigdubs 8y ago
    https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2018/03/01/guest-opinion-market-rate-housing-vs-affordable.html https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2018/03/01/gue... That is explicitly what's being advocated by Scott Wiener.
  - jadedhacker 8y ago
    While this idea seems appealing, I imagine the market rate housing will crowd out the public housing. I also think that it's fine to give public housing to those that can afford it if we take care of the needy people too. It would mean more money in the pockets of teachers, firefighters, etc.
- cgag 8y ago
  Oh god I upvoted this for false fix and then saw public housing and strict regulation. Christ.
  - blueline 8y ago
patrickg_zill 8y ago
Shutting down illegal immigration and encouraging self-deportation of illegals (by for instance, limiting various forms of aid to only legal residents and citizens of the USA) would ALSO greatly reduce housing pressures; while also reducing both property crimes and violence against people. EDIT to add: it's simple economics - less people competing for a place to rent = rents will go down.
- 542458 8y ago
  > reducing both property crimes and violence against people Neither of those ideas is supported by research. http://criminology.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264079-e-93 http://criminology.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/978019... "However, quantitative research has consistently shown that being foreign born is [...] not significantly associated with committing either violent or property crime. If an undocumented immigrant is arrested for a criminal offense, it tends to be for a misdemeanor. Researchers suggest that undocumented immigrants may be less likely to engage in serious criminal offending behavior because they seek to earn money and not to draw attention to themselves." Edit: Also, https://www.npr.org/2018/05/02/607652253/studies-say-illegal-immigration-does-not-increase-violent-crime https://www.npr.org/2018/05/02/607652253/studies-say-illegal...
  - patrickg_zill 8y ago
    That study concerns itself with LEGAL immigrants, not ILLEGAL immigrants as I specified, and uses proved-wrong, outdated numbers for its estimate of illegal immigration. See the recent Yale study : https://nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2018/01/19/yale-study-shows-23-million-illegal-immigrants/ https://nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2018/01/19/yale-study...
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - rhcom2 8y ago
      Not a Yale study. A working paper that I'm not sure was even published.
luminaobscura 8y ago
Below comment from nytimes (and linked article/tweet thread) captures the stupidity of the SF politics very well. ----------------- These are the kind of people Square is supporting: racist, ageist developer shills. http://www.sfexaminer.com/sb-827-rallies-end-yimbys-shouting-protesters-color/ http://www.sfexaminer.com/sb-827-rallies-end-yimbys-shouting...
- needToSay 8y ago
  Fuck you diversity hire
dangjc 8y ago
More and more young people come to CA to start their careers, but then take the experience (and ability to command high salaries) and move to a cheaper state. We're eroding our talent pool with the crazy high cost of living. The area will just become full of transient college grads.
senseamp 8y ago
Best thing a tech company can do to solve CA housing crisis is let workers who desire to do so work remotely from other states without taking a pay cut (beyond actual reduction in productivity, if any). Market forces will take care of the rest. The effect will be many-fold: - Increase in employee satisfaction and quality of life. Those who leave will have a much lower cost of living and can enjoy the extra money. Those who stay here will be here because it's worth the money to them. - Lower real estate costs for employer. - Reduction in employment and resulting housing demand in California. - Increase in tech populations in other areas leading to networking effects and economies of scale, making them more attractive to work at, further reducing housing demand in CA. - Better distribution of tech talent and benefits in the country, reducing anti-tech resentment and political backlash. - Loss of (tens of?) thousands of dollars in income and sales tax revenue for CA, per employee, imposing a real fiscal cost for not implementing housing supply friendly policies, and creating proper political incentives. - Loss of demand for local businesses and services, leading to a negative feedback loop to reduce local opposition to increasing housing supply. - Opportunities for tech and other businesses that embrace and help facilitate remote work. - Tech companies being closer to average people, aware and solving their real world problems instead of SF techies' scooter and/or food delivery needs. Stuffing more employees into the Bay Area and throwing a few bucks to YIMBY is not a serious solution, it's a fig leaf.
- pascalxus 8y ago
  Remote work would be hugely beneficial, even with a pay cut.
  - senseamp 8y ago
    Cost of living adjustments are market distortions that lead to things like this housing affordability crisis. Landlords jack up rents because of high local pay, cost of living goes up, and instead of letting employees move elsewhere and work remotely at existing pay, companies increase local pay more to compensate, and landlords just jack up rent again. That cycle needs to be broken before things change. Pay people for their productivity, not how much their landlords want for rent. If someone is less productive due to less spontaneous coworker interaction, then fine, pay them less to work remotely. But if they are delivering same results, they should be paid same.
geebee 8y ago
I'm all for YIMBYism, but it's framed in a couple ways that I often disagree with. First, I actually doubt that loosening zoning restrictions to allow multi apartment dwellings will harm owners of SFR properties. It'll change the neighborhood, and may lower housing costs per square foot of living space. I personally thing that it it's done properly, SF will be a more interesting place (outside of SF, I've lived in NY and Paris, and the denser places were nicer and more interesting to me). The other thing is... well, NY (Manhattan) and Paris (left bank) are also the only places I've lived that are more expensive than SF. And the higher density neighborhoods in SF are among the most expensive per square foot. I think a YIMBY SF could well turn out to be more interesting, more livable, and, more expensive. More density might just amplify network effects and create even more economic activity. This is why I do think that for affordable housing, we really do need a first class light rail and subway, like Paris and New York (and a few others). Just building density isn't going to do it.
- Tiktaalik 8y ago
  You're right in thinking that it's not a simple solution of simply adding density. More supply is good, but care needs to be taken that it's the right sort of supply and regulations are in place. Without care, more density may simply juice speculation. Both Vancouver and Seattle create lots of new residential buildings, but only Seattle is seeing significant increases in vacancy. YIMBY activists are on the right track, but they need to ensure they focus on increasing vacancy, not just increasing building construction.
- wbl 8y ago
  Density is a response to high housing prices, not a cause.
  - geebee 8y ago
    I'm not sure I agree. I think that density can lead to more desirable urban neighborhoods, which in turn attract higher income workers. Also, network effects can be dramatic. A higher concentration of knowledge workers can end up generating a higher level of economic activity, and knowledge workers can increase their economic output by living in close proximity to each other. A larger concentration of high income workers can absolutely fuel higher housing prices. This is why I'm not sure that higher density will lower housing prices in SF in the long run.
chrischen 8y ago
Simple summary of YIMBY and NIMBY platforms: YIMBY: Build more housing and higher density in desirable places (places next to transit, places close to work). This will raise rents in areas that are more desirable (to market rates) and lower rents overall as there is more supply in the city. This will also deplete supply of rent-controlled buildings as it becomes profitable to demolish old buildings. NIMBY: Preserve the right of people already living in a neighborhood to continue living there. Obviously as a "desirable" area gets more residents and buildings, it will displace some existing residents. Keep in mind this doesn't specifically mean poor people (it is not a requirement to be poor to get rent control), but inevitably some of those residents will not be wealthy enough to continue staying in the same area due to simply market dynamics. They most likely will have to move to a slightly less desirable area. But since more housing is built, they most likely will not have to move that far. While new developments will cater to the higher income people, older housing will be vacated for lower income people. The problem is without letting the market build housing where it makes senses (economically), which is in desirable areas, housing doesn't get built at all. Overall this hurts the whole economy as it increases average housing prices everywhere (while lowering average housing prices in desirable places), and makes it hard for people that weren't lucky enough to be in an area to have affordable housing.
- Decade 8y ago
  > YIMBY: Build more housing and higher density in desirable places (places next to transit, places close to work). This will raise rents in areas that are more desirable (to market rates) and lower rents overall as there is more supply in the city. Not entirely true. New units would cause rents to rise if rent has been kept artificially low by rent control, but for the last 23 years a California law has prevented vacant units from being rent controlled: Even rent-controlled units are market rate if you are trying to move to a new home. https://la.curbed.com/2018/1/12/16883276/rent-control-california-costa-hawkins-explained https://la.curbed.com/2018/1/12/16883276/rent-control-califo... But building higher density is inherently how you get lower rents when land is restricted. http://marketurbanism.com/2018/02/05/density-working-poor-outbid-rich-urban-land/ http://marketurbanism.com/2018/02/05/density-working-poor-ou...
  - 8y ago
Karishma1234 8y ago
One of the things that tech companies could have done is to diversify the locations across USA instead of just investing in California. California is subject to earthquakes, potential attack from north korea, insane illegal immigration and overall leftist hippie policies. It would have been great if all the large tech companies would invest also in Nevada, Oregon, Arizona etc. and give good competition to Calfornia. I am worried and California's response to housing crisis might end up creating even more worse crisis for us.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mobilefriendly 8y ago
Feels inappropriate for a payments processor to wade into general political fights. Stripe is becoming the backbone for payments processing and should strive to stay above politics.
- stevehawk 8y ago
  It's unfortunate people are just gonna gloss over this comment because today it's a company supporting a commonly held belief on HN. Tomorrow when it's a company supporting something HN hates we'll be back on the "lobbying sucks, corporations aren't people and don't get 1st amendment rights" etc.
syndacks 8y ago
With all due respect to the people who think this is _the_ defining issue of our generation, I think you are wrong. Climate change is the biggest issue of our generation, period.
- Decade 8y ago
  By housing, we really mean land use. We inherited from our grandparents a society built around cars, and restrictive zoning that prevents society from rebuilding away from cars. Just look at the zoning maps, how much of San Francisco is limited to 40 foot height limits (35 foot if you’re building a single-family house) and 1 or 2 homes per 2500 square feet parcel. http://sf-planning.org/zoning-maps http://sf-planning.org/zoning-maps Without enough homes near jobs, and by not allowing homes to be built without dedicating lots of space to parking, we encourage mega-commutes. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/8/22/16177820/california-transportation https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/8/22/1617782...
rajacombinator 8y ago
Startups could further help this issue by hiring remote and/or setting up shops in low cost areas. (I have no clue if Stripe does this already.) The only reason for startups to be in high tax, high cost SFBA is to raise money. Once you hit escape velocity there’s no reason to stay.
abvdasker 8y ago
As economic opportunity becomes further concentrated in urban areas this issue will only become more significant. Tech companies have a strong incentive to combat malignant housing policy in cities like SF so that they can continue to attract talent. Stripe is doing a great thing here and I hope other companies follow suit.
TangoTrotFox 8y ago
What are peoples longterm views on the viability of just expanding housing? The view currently seems to be that prices are so high, so if we enable x more housing units to be built, prices could come down. This might be true, but in the longrun housing prices are high because it's a desirable area to live in and they'll inextricably skyrocket back on up as those x become entrenched and now a new 2x want in. Take Hong Kong as the extreme example of this issue. It's currently the 4th most densely populated area in the world with 7.4 million people spread around 427 square miles. But that density didn't solve anything as its economic desirability remains high and it is also one of the most expensive areas in the world. The same was true of Tokyo decades ago when Japan was the effective technological leader of the world - the main reason housing is somewhat affordable there now is because they've gone through decades of recession and decline. Anyhow, I'm not sure if I'm missing something here because I think this issue is fairly self evident, but seems rarely discussed.
- Decade 8y ago
  Expanding housing causing expanding demand is not rarely discussed. It is implicit to a lot of NIMBYism here. The issue is to be always responsive to needs. Every place that has become unaffordable, started as a place that was affordable but then stopped building. Hong Kong is the 4th most densely populated area? Then it has room to grow. Hong Kong used to build lots of public housing for the growing population, but I heard that they stopped. Tokyo is an interesting example. Despite the recession, it is growing, not shrinking. It’s expensive, but a detached single-family home in Tokyo is cheaper than an apartment in San Francisco. I hear that average apartment size, indicating how much space people can afford, is actually going up. We think it’s because zoning law is national in Japan, and also it legalizes mixed-use walkable neighborhoods, compared to the HOA-level car-is-supreme laws in the United States. http://urbankchoze.blogspot.ca/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html http://urbankchoze.blogspot.ca/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html If the idea is that you have to plan to be ahead of demand, then the history of California is that the plan is too timid and unenforceable. https://www.thebaycitybeacon.com/politics/of-california-cities-failed-to-meet-state-housing-goals-and/article_a609ae5e-09d7-11e8-a94e-3b67baeaae8b.html https://www.thebaycitybeacon.com/politics/of-california-citi...

544 points by dcgudeman 8y ago

Housing a persistent issue that comes up a lot on HN. It seems to me that as tech-workers, we feel the guilt associated with economic pressure adversely affecting the civic-environment we coexist in but strangely feel that it is inappropriate (inconvenient?) to take part in the political machinery that addresses these tragedy-of-the-commons-type problems. Perhaps there is a collective disillusion with how slow building civic-consensus is (i.e. too much bureaucracy). For those who may feel this way, I strongly encourage your support of political action groups like YIMBY. They provide a low-cost way for you to associate yourself with a group of people focused on trying to fix NIMBY forces within the housing market.

zapita 8y ago
Also make sure to reward politicians who support Yimbi and other pro-housing policies. For example London Breed and Jeff Sheehy are both endorsed by Yimbi. If housing is important to you, make sure to take these endorsements into account in the upcoming election.
- bsimpson 8y ago
  I wish SF had a better mayoral candidate. I feel like I'm stuck choosing between sane housing policy (Breed) or sane bike/transit policy (Kim). And I'm sure there are plenty of other dimensions where they're both bad.
  - zapita 8y ago
    In my opinion housing comes first. Breed's bike policy seemed reasonable but maybe I missed something? The most critical transit issues are at the scale of the Bay area, and the SF mayor doesn't have the authority or budgets to solve them alone. That will require strong action at the state level, or the emergence of a new layer of government with the mandate and budgets to bypass the petty squabbles of cities and impose a sane bay area transit infrastructure development roadmap. One can dream...
    - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
      >That will require strong action at the state level, or the emergence of a new layer of government with the mandate and budgets to bypass the petty squabbles of cities and impose a sane bay area transit infrastructure development roadmap. One can dream... Controlling what people can and can't build on their property at the city level was created to prevent the same problems that exist on the city level back when they were on the neighborhood level. I don't see state or county level zoning as anything more than recursion that will just keep bringing the problem to a different level without solving it. The fundamental issue is that people are not allowed to or the regulations make it economically impossible to build housing at high density. I don't think adding another layer of bureaucracy will make it easier to build the necessary density of housing.
      - zapita 8y ago
        I'm not talking about housing or zoning (although in some cases state intervention can be useful there too, for different reasons), I'm talking about transit. The bay area mass transit infrastructure is a joke, it is nowhere near the level required to support its growth in population and economic activity. We need more intercity mass transit, and bay area cities have a clear track record of being incapable of building them through collaboration. They need an authority above them to make the calls and provide the funds. That is how other successful urban mega-hubs do it: Tokyo, Paris, Amsterdam, etc.
  - jdavis703 8y ago
    She actually has a fairly good track record and platform on mobility: https://medium.com/@LondonBreed/transportation-that-works-for-everyone-bd376b37279d https://medium.com/@LondonBreed/transportation-that-works-fo.... I wish she had come out with this post much earlier, but better late than never.
  - Decade 8y ago
    The tipping point for me is to consider how they do their work. London Breed is trying to make San Francisco a city for everyone, and she does not let personal feelings get in the way of good policy. Jane Kim may know how to say the right things, but get on her bad side and she will abandon your policy and destroy your company’s projects.
  - bytematic 8y ago
    This is cute. You should see the candidates in my hometown, reddest district in Wisconsin.
- golemiprague 8y ago
  That's one of the reasons I like Trump, as someone who come from the industry he is advocating policies to make it easier to build.
- jekdoce 8y ago
  Is there a list of Bay Area local politicians voting record/views on housing? Seems like a good first step in terms of organizing to vote for people that are pro building.
pchristensen 8y ago
I think more people discussing housing on HN are angry at the entrenched, intractable housing and local government cartel that is making housing so expensive. Tech workers are paid well, but a) home ownership is lower in CA + NY, b) home ownership is lower in big cities, c) home ownership skews older to begin with and that has been increasing over time, d) HN skews young and is largely people in big cities, so it's safe to assume that lots of readers are sending a big chunk of that big fat tech money to a landlord. The housing fight is largely older, wealthier, entrenched, long-term owners vs younger newcomers who haven't been able to put down roots. It's no surprise that it has been a political rout. I wish the YIMBYs well. The numbers could be on their side but the structure of the political contest is not.
- Epenthesis 8y ago
  Wait, why would “sending a big chunk of that fat tech money to a landlord” make someone not interested in fixing the housing crisis?
  - pchristensen 8y ago
    I'm saying that's why many urban tech workers are angry about housing policy, as opposed to the parent comment that suggested they feel guilty about it.
    - landryraccoon 8y ago
      Anger doesnt change anything. Activism, involvement and donations do. Young tech workers have energy, money (compared to their peers) and incentive to change the system. If they won’t act, they suffer more than anyone else.
      - lorenzq 8y ago
        Tech workers are still a minority in the bay area.
fierro 8y ago
This could not be more true
dmitrygr 8y ago
> trying to fix NIMBY forces This is probably bad word choice. If not, why is it that you feel you need to "fix" others' opinions? You believe A, they believe B (B != A). Neither needs to be fixed. They just differ. [bring on the disagreement downvotes, my point stands!]
- ixtli 8y ago
  I think opinion is not a great word to use because while, yes, people have opinions that inform their world views this is a question of action. Inaction reinforces the status quo, which is bad, and "YIMBY" people believe they have a prescription for those undesirable conditions. I guess if you accept the premise that housing is in crisis then it's not ultimately about what you believe, per say, it's about deciding on what to do. From there I think it's easy to imagine that proponents may diagnose the opposition as having drawn incorrect conclusions about the world around them that need rectifying.
  - dmitrygr 8y ago
    > if you accept the premise that housing is in crisis s/accept/believe/g
    - ixtli 8y ago
      I mean I think you know what i'm getting at here. This seems like needless hairsplitting, tbh: you either accept/believe/admit/conclude/concede that premise or you don't.
- pascalxus 8y ago
  some of Their opinions are based on mis-information (for example: that fixing housing would increase traffic, when actually the opposite is true, or that increasing the supply of housing increases prices, etc - there's an enormous amount of misinformation out there). It's like back in the 60s when people were told Smoking was healthy. many changed their opinion about smoking when they found out it wasn't actually healthy. this is why, the opinions need "fixing"
ixtli 8y ago
In my experience it's not that people feel as though it's inappropriate to participate in political machinery. They believe that "politics" are inefficient and, as such, a waste of their time. I believe the incorrect notion that "politics" can (or should be) avoided is to blame here.
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  Politics can be avoided. Instead of asking for the system to do something for you, you just find a way to achieve your goals by whatever means necessary. You just think of the law as a machine to be hacked. It’s illegal to sell raw milk. I could try to convince some legislators that it’s important (not likely) or just find a way way to operate a raw milk business that doesn’t involve sales. Some problems may be temporary insoluable, but I find I have plenty of problems to solve. No use worrying about the ones that are fundamentally at odds with statutes.
  - ixtli 8y ago
    I accept this as an ideological position, though I disagree with it. I'm not sure this is the best medium to wade into the specifics but tl;r: I have found that the really interesting problems require working together with other people and sometimes to do so you must act against your own immediate self interests. I also think this type of extreme individualism starts to fall apart when someone starts to act in a way that causes you or others indirect harm and you want to get them to stop. That said laws are the programming language of our society! People should never imagine them to be anything else. I think, and I don't mean this in an aggressive way, that when you talk about "hacking" laws you're simply engaging in politics :) Albeit with a starkly different ideological grounding and aesthetics. The reason I put that word in quotes in the comment you responded to was to imply suspicion about reductive definitions of the term that seem to categorize it only as "something that happens on the senate floor."
zjaffee 8y ago
I have to disagree with this statement. Tech workers may feel the guilt, but many of the YIMBYs have no care in the world for the people they may be displacing, are in favor of removing rent control because it would then give poorer residents the skin in the game needed for them to demand more housing. I can go on and on about this. Yes NIMBYism is a problem, but this goes well beyond the more market rate housing debate, people being against public transit improvements, housing for the homeless, and clinic for drug addicts are ones that come to mind.
- epistasis 8y ago
  That is definitely not true at all the leadership level (ie podcasts, official communications. In my experience it's not at all true at the local either. However, it is a common mischaracterization by outsiders that reflexively oppose YIMBY. For a while, it was common to say that YIMBYs opposes BMR and affordable housing in general, which is completely untrue. I guess it's shifted now to say that YIMBYs are pro-gentrification instead, which is absolutely counter to any high level communication or leadership discussion I've heard, or any local desires. If you have links to such statements, or people that I can talk to, I'd love to jump in on that discussion and point out with documentation how that supposed YIMBY is not representing a YIMBY viewpoint.
  - zjaffee 8y ago
    Yes, the group California Yimby supports these things, but it absolutely hurts the Yimby movements credibility where they have allows people who spew the "Luxury housing will trickle prices down to the poor" shpiel are given a platform by them to display their beliefs. At best, any new construction that impacts costs will just lead to more upper middle class tech workers being in the bay area while continuing with the current pace of displacement we've seen already. YIMBYism isn't pro gentrification, but those who are pro gentrification will always be YIMBYs. And I can't provide direct links, just this sort of thing is all over YIMBY/NIMBY/PHIMBY facebook and twitter.
    - epistasis 8y ago
pm90 8y ago
Tech workers can generally find private sector jobs that pay an incredible amount of money. This naturally discourages them from seeking Government jobs which tend to pay less (and most of the times have an inflexible, bureaucratic nature). But I agree with participation in that we should be voting and funding political programs that we believe in.
pascalxus 8y ago
I don't think it has anything to do with guilt. Housing costs affect people across the entire income spectrum. those paid the least have few if no options other than to win the housing lottery. Those paid the most, will also pay the most for housing too: because those jobs are only in places where houses are more than 2 million a piece. It' a problem for everyone who doesn't own a house yet.
mleonhard 8y ago
SF YIMBY endorses London Breed for Mayor. You can volunteer to help get her elected: """ Phone Banking: This is one of the best ways to get out the vote, and a really nice opportunity to chat with other San Franciscans. We'll be phone banking every Tuesday & Thursday from 6 - 8:30 at YIMBY headquarters (1260 Mission St) from now through the 31st to help get out the vote for London. May 12th Event: Campaign event with YIMBY & London Saturday May 12, 11:30-1:30 at the Mission Bay food trucks near the ballpark. (601 Mission Bay Blvd) Slate Card: A great tool for talking with your friends about the YIMBY's endorsements for the June ballot. Available on our website, here: https://yimbyaction.org/endorsements/ https://yimbyaction.org/endorsements/ Ballots go out next week and we'd love your help getting the word about the election - hope you can join us! """

davidw 8y ago

This makes sense for companies to back: how many billions of their investors dollars just go straight to rent?

no_one_ever 8y ago
But once those dollars are given to the employees, why does it matter where they end up? Why would a company care if it goes to a mortgage or rent?
- davidw 8y ago
  Because if more $$$ are in the employees pockets, the employees are easier to attract and happier, and the company is more competitive.
- zasz 8y ago
  Because high rents cancel out the benefits of a high salary. It's simple arithmetic. Why give up 30k of a 100k salary to work and live in SF, when I could give up 10k of an 90k salary in Austin instead? (These are just illustrative figures.) And the high price of housing means that even tech workers who want families can't afford the space to raise them.
  - no_one_ever 8y ago
    My case is interesting. I have big student loan payments that don't adjust to my income or salary. I feel tethered to high CoL areas because those areas offer higher salaries with more take-home income, despite a higher median rent. The best balance for me is a high salary in a low CoL so I don't burn my take-home on rent, but I'd rather be given a larger salary, spend some more on rent, and have more money left over to pay off my debt.
    - zasz 8y ago
      What about working remotely?
  - 8y ago

pc 8y ago

Stripe cofounder here. This is an issue that I know a lot of HN readers care about and I'd encourage anyone interested to get involved. (Feel free to reach out to CA YIMBY, your local representatives, or any of the other organizations doing good work in the field.) Bad housing policy is one of the biggest impediments to overall economic growth[1] and to individual economic opportunity[2][3] in the US. Our current restrictive policies disproportionately hurt poorer, younger, and (frequently) non-white[4] people. I really hope we can change them. [1] https://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/chang-tai.hsieh/research/growth.pdf https://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/chang-tai.hsieh/research/gr... [2] https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/83656/2000907-strategies-for-increasing-housing-supply-in-high-cost-cities-dc-case-study_1.pdf https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/83656/... [3] From the Obama administration: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/Housing_Development_Toolkit%20f.2.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images... [4] https://www.amazon.com/Color-Law-Forgotten-Government-Segregated/dp/1631492853 https://www.amazon.com/Color-Law-Forgotten-Government-Segreg...

davidw 8y ago
I can't say thank you enough! California's housing policies have repercusions even way up here in Bend, Oregon: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/back-againbend-oregon-matt-abrams/?published=t https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/back-againbend-oregon-matt-ab... The articles and book you cite are excellent ones, and I'd highly recommend them to anyone interested in this issue. I have a bunch more here, too: https://bendyimby.com/2017/06/12/yimby-reading/ https://bendyimby.com/2017/06/12/yimby-reading/
- pchristensen 8y ago
  I used to live in Dublin, CA outside of SF, and there was a big housing boom there. I said that SF could turn off Dublin's housing boom with one vote. The entire Western US is in the same position with CA - every good place to live west of the Rockies is inundated with people leaving CA, many carrying CA housing wealth with them.
  - 8y ago

toomuchtodo 8y ago

@pc: Any consideration to closing your SoMo office (similar to what Automattic did [1]) and migrating towards a fully remote org? That would improve the quality of life of your workers currently required to be near SF by allowing them to relocate to lower cost of living areas, as changing California housing policy and seeing the results in lower housing costs due to denser construction is going to take decades [2]. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/automattic-closes-san-francisco-office-to-let-everyone-work-remotely-2017-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/automattic-closes-san-francis... [2] http://www.sfexaminer.com/solve-affordability-crisis-bay-area-housing-stock-must-grow-50-percent-20-years/ http://www.sfexaminer.com/solve-affordability-crisis-bay-are... Disclosure: Worked for a popular and well run fully remote startup for two years.

rifung 8y ago
> That would improve the quality of life of your workers currently required to be near SF by allowing them to relocate to lower cost of living areas I don't think you can assume that people would consider this to be an improvement in overall quality of life, especially when many (or most?) current employees joined the companies presumably knowing they would work in SF. I personally enjoy seeing my coworkers in person and I know others on my team have requested more face time with coworkers in other offices.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  As long as you are comfortable knowing this problem won’t be fixed for you, but maybe your kids, that’s a fine stance to take. It’s reasonable you spend your money as you choose. It’s irrational for a company to pay you more to be in SF when they can pay talent less that chooses to live elsewhere.
  - landryraccoon 8y ago
    > It’s irrational for a company to pay you more to be in SF when they can pay talent less that chooses to live elsewhere. There’s almost no way its true that they can get the same talent for less elsewhere. You’re arguing that somehow every major tech company is simultaneously irrationally acting against their own very strong profit motives.

frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago

So one thing I always have trouble with on this debate is that it feels totally one-sided. There's smart people on the YIMBY side making the case for building. But then NIMBYs are always portrayed as a caricature of the self-interested rich guy. So I read this article and then I click through to http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-housing-bill-failure-equity-groups-20180502-story.html http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-housing-bill-failu... this article and I see lots of poor people opposed SB 827 as well. But even then there isn't really a strong op-ed or anything like that making the case against YIMBY. Where do I go to read that? If you're a YIMBY what's the toughest NIMBY article or argument you've come across?

ng12 8y ago
The arguments I've come across fall into three buckets: neighborhood character, traffic/infrastructure, and (my personal favorite) supply and demand doesn't apply to housing. I suspect the real root is a fear of change mixed with greed.
zasz 8y ago
The best I can find of the SB827 opponents is statements like this: http://www.dsa-la.org/statement_in_opposition_to_sb_827 http://www.dsa-la.org/statement_in_opposition_to_sb_827 The anti-development left is, for a variety of reasons, not terribly visible. Poor people of color lack visibility in the first place, and so do the more extreme leftists. So you multiply those together, and you're not going to get a movement that commands a lot of attention. The other issue with finding unified op-eds against YIMBYs is that these battles are literally fought building by building. If you really want a detailed look at the debates that showcases both sides, you'll have to start reading more local news. NIMBYs are generally quite happy to acknowledge that there's a statewide housing crisis, but they'll refuse to build anything in their own neighborhoods. NIMBYs don't need to be a unified force to get their way. Whereas, YIMBYs seeking to enact statewide change via bills like SB827 do.
- nerfhammer 8y ago
  Poor people of color don't oppose development, it's mostly upper middle class whites: "77% of Latinos, 69% of African Americans, and 64% of Asian Americans support building more housing in their local areas, compared with 53% of whites.” http://www.ppic.org/publication/californians-and-housing-affordability/ http://www.ppic.org/publication/californians-and-housing-aff...

jakelarkin 8y ago

California and the Bay Area is so screwed. The Powers-that-be looked at SB827 like it was the work of lunatics, and did not engage in any of the significant concessions that were made. The bill was completely impotent at the end ... local demolition control + 4-5 story buildings. It drew no interest nor alternative proposals to actually help solve the housing crisis. So yeah we're going to end up with middle class social housing lotteries, 1.5 hour commutes and crazy inflation of basic service costs ($3k/month child care, anyone?). Every neighborhood can't be a wealthy enclave of SFH. There is literally no where to live in the central Bay Area on teachers salary much less a Social Security Disability paycheck. The homelessness epidemic will grow. It's a rentier economy of land owners and the rent-controlled incumbents. How "Progressive".

tomkarlo 8y ago
You can substitute "Bay Area" with many of the major centers in the US at this point - Seattle, LA, Denver, Austin all have the same issues, they're just a few years behind the Bay. We need fixes to zoning and development rules and tax laws, they help cities be more liveable as it will help everyone. Cities overseas have figured this out, to some degree - rent as a % of income is lower in both Europe and Asia, generally, and it's a lot easier to build effective mass transit when housing densities are a bit higher. The single family home is one of the worst things to happen to the US, and it's slowly killing us with traffic and spiraling housing prices.
- loeg 8y ago
  > You can substitute "Bay Area" with many of the major centers in the US at this point - Seattle, LA, Denver, Austin all have the same issues, they're just a few years behind the Bay. Not the same issues. Seattle doesn't have anything like Prop 13, or nearly as bad height restrictions. City residents and council are much more supportive of upzoning than SFBA — as in, it actually happens.[0] Plenty of actual issues, and development still lags demand. But the situation is not nearly as dire as SFBA, and it's not getting worse quite as fast. [0]: https://seattle.curbed.com/2017/11/9/16629248/seattle-hala-mha-upzone-plan https://seattle.curbed.com/2017/11/9/16629248/seattle-hala-m...

ThomPete 8y ago

If you are in California I would suggest you look up Michael Schellenberger. He is a democrat running for office and pro Nuclear. Here is a good interview with him where he lays out some of his opinions on amongst other things the problem with NIMBY. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-7DIv3AU1o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-7DIv3AU1o

throwaway4711 8y ago

For context, moves like this are self-serving for the tech companies based in SF. Their interest is to have access to the tech talent fueling their growth.

rb808 8y ago

California is already is the state with the largest population by a long way. Sure you could squeeze a few more million into the bay area but SF has geographic restrictions, esp with water. Surely it would be smarter to encourage more tech firms to move to places where there is more space, like Denver, Chicago, Austin. Basically anywhere off the coasts. Just give on on SF already.

davidw 8y ago
The city of Tokyo added more housing than the entire state of California in 2014: https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-costs-tokyo https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-... Also, no, California really isn't that crowded. Italy has something like 30% more people on less land, and still manages to be a massive tourist destination because it is amazingly wonderful and beautiful, from the mountains to the cities to the seashores.
- freehunter 8y ago
  And Tokyo is in a huge water crisis and could very soon run out of fresh drinking water for all of their citizens. California, with substantially fewer people moving in, is already in a water shortage. Do you think they can support Toyko-style housing numbers? I say this as someone who lives in the one of the states that West Coast politicians want to steal the water from. Instead of shipping our water across the country to feed the desert, you can... you know... just move here. So the water is fed back where it came from.
  - davidw 8y ago
    Most of the water in CA goes to agricultural uses if I'm not mistaken. Denser cities are far more efficient in environmental terms: no lawns, less fossil fuel usage and so on. Sure, some jobs will go elsewhere, but there are big returns to being where everyone else is. This book does a good job explaining why: https://amzn.to/2KymJj6 https://amzn.to/2KymJj6
  - jakelarkin 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

throwaway84742 8y ago

Enough money to sway 0.5 a typical SV household.

almost_usual 8y ago
Enough money to sway 0.1 a typical Bay Area native multi home owner.

maym86 8y ago

Investing in better public transportation is important too so that people can live further away from the city and commute in a reasonable time. http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/03/14/bay-area-cities-outrank-l-a-on-list-of-longest-commutes-in-u-s/ http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/03/14/bay-area-cities-...

lewis500 8y ago
better public transportation would only alleviate the problem if it goes to places where additional supply gets built. otherwise it will just drive up prices in the places to which it adds accessibility. imagine a teleporter in stockton that goes anywhere in the bay. unless stockton allows additional housing near the teleporter, it will just become even more expensive than san francisco.
- ch4s3 8y ago
  > better public transportation would only alleviate the problem if it goes to places where additional supply gets built. You have to have zoning that allows density around transit hubs, which NIMBYs oppose. So, I think you have to have the housing fight regardless.
- maym86 8y ago
  Who said anything about teleporters? Edit: My point is that a train is not a teleporter. A train spreads population density over a larger area, with multiple stops and takes more time to move people than an imaginary sci-fi device. The comparison is not fair and pointless. Why not just talk about how trains would work instead of using an imprecise analogy.
  - groby_b 8y ago
    A teleporter is the spherical cow of transportation - it allows for simplified thought experiments. Replace with "a bus line to"/"a train to", the outcome is the same. Unless places with connection to the public transportation system build more housing, prices there will just be driven up as well. (Housing shortage in the Bay is that bad)

zjaffee 8y ago

If you believe housing prices are a core problem to the growth of your business why continue to grow in the bay area rather than try and move to a less expensive region of the country? Massive growth in the SF housing supply is just politically infeasible at this time, a million dollar donation won't change that.

ch4s3 8y ago
> less expensive region of the country I don't live in CA, but I get why people want to. Where would you propose? Where else has a strong economy, good universities, nice weather, a well educated/talented work force, legal frameworks amenable to tech, good food, and interesting culture? There just aren't a lot of candidates, and if everyone moves hypothetically and never grapples with NIMBY policy, they'll just bring the problem with them.
- zcdziura 8y ago
  Off the top of my head, I can think of two places: Raleigh, NC and Austin, TX.
  - tmh79 8y ago
    they're both undergoing a housing crises right now
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Nashville, TN, Research Triangle Park in NC, Austin/San Antonio, TX with Tampa/Orlando, FL coming in as runner up as growing tech hubs.
  - ng12 8y ago
    A quick googling of `${city} housing crisis`: https://www.nashville.gov/Portals/0/SiteContent/Human%20Realations%20Commission/docs/publications/HousingGuide.pdf https://www.nashville.gov/Portals/0/SiteContent/Human%20Real... https://www.wral.com/officials-describe-wake-county-as-affordable-housing-desert-crisis/17114070/ https://www.wral.com/officials-describe-wake-county-as-affor... https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2018-02-02/whose-affordability-crisis/ https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2018-02-02/whose-afford... https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2018/03/15/orlandos-affordable-housing-crisis-is-about-to-implode https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2018/03/15/orla...

dang 8y ago

There's also https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180503005513/en/Stripe-1-Million-Contribution-California-YIMBY-Support https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180503005513/en/Str... (via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16988367 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16988367), which contains a bit more info, albeit in a press release.

jadedhacker 8y ago

YIMBYism, that is, additions to housing stock made by private developers, is a false fix. The idea that additional housing stock is needed is correct, but the idea that more and more powerful landlords and developers will create space for vulnerable people is plainly wrong. More luxury condos, buildings rented by foreign investors that never occupy them as a place to park money, and all the problems of the powerful setting the agenda for everyone develops. Instead, we need public housing, strict regulation, and yes more units built at the behest of the state.

davidw 8y ago
Plenty of YIMBYs are fine with "do both!": more market rate housing supply, and more subsidized housing for those who can't afford the former. The more of the former you produce, the more you can concentrate the latter on the truly needy, and not people like teachers, firefighters and so on who have good jobs that are important to society.
- bigdubs 8y ago
  https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2018/03/01/guest-opinion-market-rate-housing-vs-affordable.html https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2018/03/01/gue... That is explicitly what's being advocated by Scott Wiener.
- jadedhacker 8y ago
  While this idea seems appealing, I imagine the market rate housing will crowd out the public housing. I also think that it's fine to give public housing to those that can afford it if we take care of the needy people too. It would mean more money in the pockets of teachers, firefighters, etc.
cgag 8y ago
Oh god I upvoted this for false fix and then saw public housing and strict regulation. Christ.
- blueline 8y ago

patrickg_zill 8y ago

Shutting down illegal immigration and encouraging self-deportation of illegals (by for instance, limiting various forms of aid to only legal residents and citizens of the USA) would ALSO greatly reduce housing pressures; while also reducing both property crimes and violence against people. EDIT to add: it's simple economics - less people competing for a place to rent = rents will go down.

542458 8y ago
> reducing both property crimes and violence against people Neither of those ideas is supported by research. http://criminology.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264079-e-93 http://criminology.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/978019... "However, quantitative research has consistently shown that being foreign born is [...] not significantly associated with committing either violent or property crime. If an undocumented immigrant is arrested for a criminal offense, it tends to be for a misdemeanor. Researchers suggest that undocumented immigrants may be less likely to engage in serious criminal offending behavior because they seek to earn money and not to draw attention to themselves." Edit: Also, https://www.npr.org/2018/05/02/607652253/studies-say-illegal-immigration-does-not-increase-violent-crime https://www.npr.org/2018/05/02/607652253/studies-say-illegal...
- patrickg_zill 8y ago
  That study concerns itself with LEGAL immigrants, not ILLEGAL immigrants as I specified, and uses proved-wrong, outdated numbers for its estimate of illegal immigration. See the recent Yale study : https://nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2018/01/19/yale-study-shows-23-million-illegal-immigrants/ https://nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2018/01/19/yale-study...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - rhcom2 8y ago
    Not a Yale study. A working paper that I'm not sure was even published.

luminaobscura 8y ago

Below comment from nytimes (and linked article/tweet thread) captures the stupidity of the SF politics very well. ----------------- These are the kind of people Square is supporting: racist, ageist developer shills. http://www.sfexaminer.com/sb-827-rallies-end-yimbys-shouting-protesters-color/ http://www.sfexaminer.com/sb-827-rallies-end-yimbys-shouting...

needToSay 8y ago
Fuck you diversity hire

dangjc 8y ago

More and more young people come to CA to start their careers, but then take the experience (and ability to command high salaries) and move to a cheaper state. We're eroding our talent pool with the crazy high cost of living. The area will just become full of transient college grads.

senseamp 8y ago

Best thing a tech company can do to solve CA housing crisis is let workers who desire to do so work remotely from other states without taking a pay cut (beyond actual reduction in productivity, if any). Market forces will take care of the rest. The effect will be many-fold: - Increase in employee satisfaction and quality of life. Those who leave will have a much lower cost of living and can enjoy the extra money. Those who stay here will be here because it's worth the money to them. - Lower real estate costs for employer. - Reduction in employment and resulting housing demand in California. - Increase in tech populations in other areas leading to networking effects and economies of scale, making them more attractive to work at, further reducing housing demand in CA. - Better distribution of tech talent and benefits in the country, reducing anti-tech resentment and political backlash. - Loss of (tens of?) thousands of dollars in income and sales tax revenue for CA, per employee, imposing a real fiscal cost for not implementing housing supply friendly policies, and creating proper political incentives. - Loss of demand for local businesses and services, leading to a negative feedback loop to reduce local opposition to increasing housing supply. - Opportunities for tech and other businesses that embrace and help facilitate remote work. - Tech companies being closer to average people, aware and solving their real world problems instead of SF techies' scooter and/or food delivery needs. Stuffing more employees into the Bay Area and throwing a few bucks to YIMBY is not a serious solution, it's a fig leaf.

pascalxus 8y ago
Remote work would be hugely beneficial, even with a pay cut.
- senseamp 8y ago
  Cost of living adjustments are market distortions that lead to things like this housing affordability crisis. Landlords jack up rents because of high local pay, cost of living goes up, and instead of letting employees move elsewhere and work remotely at existing pay, companies increase local pay more to compensate, and landlords just jack up rent again. That cycle needs to be broken before things change. Pay people for their productivity, not how much their landlords want for rent. If someone is less productive due to less spontaneous coworker interaction, then fine, pay them less to work remotely. But if they are delivering same results, they should be paid same.

geebee 8y ago

I'm all for YIMBYism, but it's framed in a couple ways that I often disagree with. First, I actually doubt that loosening zoning restrictions to allow multi apartment dwellings will harm owners of SFR properties. It'll change the neighborhood, and may lower housing costs per square foot of living space. I personally thing that it it's done properly, SF will be a more interesting place (outside of SF, I've lived in NY and Paris, and the denser places were nicer and more interesting to me). The other thing is... well, NY (Manhattan) and Paris (left bank) are also the only places I've lived that are more expensive than SF. And the higher density neighborhoods in SF are among the most expensive per square foot. I think a YIMBY SF could well turn out to be more interesting, more livable, and, more expensive. More density might just amplify network effects and create even more economic activity. This is why I do think that for affordable housing, we really do need a first class light rail and subway, like Paris and New York (and a few others). Just building density isn't going to do it.

Tiktaalik 8y ago
You're right in thinking that it's not a simple solution of simply adding density. More supply is good, but care needs to be taken that it's the right sort of supply and regulations are in place. Without care, more density may simply juice speculation. Both Vancouver and Seattle create lots of new residential buildings, but only Seattle is seeing significant increases in vacancy. YIMBY activists are on the right track, but they need to ensure they focus on increasing vacancy, not just increasing building construction.
wbl 8y ago
Density is a response to high housing prices, not a cause.
- geebee 8y ago
  I'm not sure I agree. I think that density can lead to more desirable urban neighborhoods, which in turn attract higher income workers. Also, network effects can be dramatic. A higher concentration of knowledge workers can end up generating a higher level of economic activity, and knowledge workers can increase their economic output by living in close proximity to each other. A larger concentration of high income workers can absolutely fuel higher housing prices. This is why I'm not sure that higher density will lower housing prices in SF in the long run.

chrischen 8y ago

Simple summary of YIMBY and NIMBY platforms: YIMBY: Build more housing and higher density in desirable places (places next to transit, places close to work). This will raise rents in areas that are more desirable (to market rates) and lower rents overall as there is more supply in the city. This will also deplete supply of rent-controlled buildings as it becomes profitable to demolish old buildings. NIMBY: Preserve the right of people already living in a neighborhood to continue living there. Obviously as a "desirable" area gets more residents and buildings, it will displace some existing residents. Keep in mind this doesn't specifically mean poor people (it is not a requirement to be poor to get rent control), but inevitably some of those residents will not be wealthy enough to continue staying in the same area due to simply market dynamics. They most likely will have to move to a slightly less desirable area. But since more housing is built, they most likely will not have to move that far. While new developments will cater to the higher income people, older housing will be vacated for lower income people. The problem is without letting the market build housing where it makes senses (economically), which is in desirable areas, housing doesn't get built at all. Overall this hurts the whole economy as it increases average housing prices everywhere (while lowering average housing prices in desirable places), and makes it hard for people that weren't lucky enough to be in an area to have affordable housing.

Decade 8y ago
> YIMBY: Build more housing and higher density in desirable places (places next to transit, places close to work). This will raise rents in areas that are more desirable (to market rates) and lower rents overall as there is more supply in the city. Not entirely true. New units would cause rents to rise if rent has been kept artificially low by rent control, but for the last 23 years a California law has prevented vacant units from being rent controlled: Even rent-controlled units are market rate if you are trying to move to a new home. https://la.curbed.com/2018/1/12/16883276/rent-control-california-costa-hawkins-explained https://la.curbed.com/2018/1/12/16883276/rent-control-califo... But building higher density is inherently how you get lower rents when land is restricted. http://marketurbanism.com/2018/02/05/density-working-poor-outbid-rich-urban-land/ http://marketurbanism.com/2018/02/05/density-working-poor-ou...
- 8y ago

Karishma1234 8y ago

One of the things that tech companies could have done is to diversify the locations across USA instead of just investing in California. California is subject to earthquakes, potential attack from north korea, insane illegal immigration and overall leftist hippie policies. It would have been great if all the large tech companies would invest also in Nevada, Oregon, Arizona etc. and give good competition to Calfornia. I am worried and California's response to housing crisis might end up creating even more worse crisis for us.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

mobilefriendly 8y ago

Feels inappropriate for a payments processor to wade into general political fights. Stripe is becoming the backbone for payments processing and should strive to stay above politics.

stevehawk 8y ago
It's unfortunate people are just gonna gloss over this comment because today it's a company supporting a commonly held belief on HN. Tomorrow when it's a company supporting something HN hates we'll be back on the "lobbying sucks, corporations aren't people and don't get 1st amendment rights" etc.

syndacks 8y ago

With all due respect to the people who think this is _the_ defining issue of our generation, I think you are wrong. Climate change is the biggest issue of our generation, period.

Decade 8y ago
By housing, we really mean land use. We inherited from our grandparents a society built around cars, and restrictive zoning that prevents society from rebuilding away from cars. Just look at the zoning maps, how much of San Francisco is limited to 40 foot height limits (35 foot if you’re building a single-family house) and 1 or 2 homes per 2500 square feet parcel. http://sf-planning.org/zoning-maps http://sf-planning.org/zoning-maps Without enough homes near jobs, and by not allowing homes to be built without dedicating lots of space to parking, we encourage mega-commutes. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/8/22/16177820/california-transportation https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/8/22/1617782...

rajacombinator 8y ago

Startups could further help this issue by hiring remote and/or setting up shops in low cost areas. (I have no clue if Stripe does this already.) The only reason for startups to be in high tax, high cost SFBA is to raise money. Once you hit escape velocity there’s no reason to stay.

abvdasker 8y ago

As economic opportunity becomes further concentrated in urban areas this issue will only become more significant. Tech companies have a strong incentive to combat malignant housing policy in cities like SF so that they can continue to attract talent. Stripe is doing a great thing here and I hope other companies follow suit.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago

What are peoples longterm views on the viability of just expanding housing? The view currently seems to be that prices are so high, so if we enable x more housing units to be built, prices could come down. This might be true, but in the longrun housing prices are high because it's a desirable area to live in and they'll inextricably skyrocket back on up as those x become entrenched and now a new 2x want in. Take Hong Kong as the extreme example of this issue. It's currently the 4th most densely populated area in the world with 7.4 million people spread around 427 square miles. But that density didn't solve anything as its economic desirability remains high and it is also one of the most expensive areas in the world. The same was true of Tokyo decades ago when Japan was the effective technological leader of the world - the main reason housing is somewhat affordable there now is because they've gone through decades of recession and decline. Anyhow, I'm not sure if I'm missing something here because I think this issue is fairly self evident, but seems rarely discussed.

Decade 8y ago
Expanding housing causing expanding demand is not rarely discussed. It is implicit to a lot of NIMBYism here. The issue is to be always responsive to needs. Every place that has become unaffordable, started as a place that was affordable but then stopped building. Hong Kong is the 4th most densely populated area? Then it has room to grow. Hong Kong used to build lots of public housing for the growing population, but I heard that they stopped. Tokyo is an interesting example. Despite the recession, it is growing, not shrinking. It’s expensive, but a detached single-family home in Tokyo is cheaper than an apartment in San Francisco. I hear that average apartment size, indicating how much space people can afford, is actually going up. We think it’s because zoning law is national in Japan, and also it legalizes mixed-use walkable neighborhoods, compared to the HOA-level car-is-supreme laws in the United States. http://urbankchoze.blogspot.ca/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html http://urbankchoze.blogspot.ca/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html If the idea is that you have to plan to be ahead of demand, then the history of California is that the plan is too timid and unenforceable. https://www.thebaycitybeacon.com/politics/of-california-cities-failed-to-meet-state-housing-goals-and/article_a609ae5e-09d7-11e8-a94e-3b67baeaae8b.html https://www.thebaycitybeacon.com/politics/of-california-citi...