3 ms·

Jason Calacanis makes comments about this from time to time on his podcast. There's some pretty nontrivial problems with the whole NIMBY stuff, and it seems li

by crsv 8y ago

Jason Calacanis makes comments about this from time to time on his podcast. There's some pretty nontrivial problems with the whole NIMBY stuff, and it seems like it will likely have to involve some seriously legislation that I think might be more at the governor / state senate level. The homelessness problem is something that no one has solved really well and is perhaps even more complicated than the housing crisis itself (though they're part of the same challenge in many ways). This is one of those big daunting problems that feels increasingly make or break for SF as a whole, and given it the size and complexity of the problem, will likely involve a very disruptive and painful change to address. If I'm taking a bet here, I think it's more likely that they don't handle the problem effectively and the workforce and economy distribute out of the system, followed by a sudden and severe real-estate market correction, and then the growth will settle and flatten for a while

rhizome 8y ago
This is one of those big daunting problems that feels increasingly make or break for SF as a whole My sense is that it's "make or break" only for people who have been here for three years and are trying to decide whether to remain for two more.
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  This is only true if you think it's okay that people born in California can't afford to start families there. The state's housing regulations favor older, established people and wealthy newcomers over people born in California. If you really want to make that tradeoff, then go for it, but I don't think most people view the issue through this particular lens. IMO, they should.
- dcosson 8y ago
  That's kind of the whole point. Is the city full and now only open to the wealthy and people who got lucky enough to buy houses > 5 years ago (or get locked into rent control > 5 years ago), or should it be allowed to grow to welcome new people from around the country and world who want to move here in search of better opportunities? Because people who have lived here 3 years or less by extension includes everyone who doesn't live here yet (as well as basically everyone under 25 unless they grew up here). I would also push back on the "deciding whether to stay for 2 more years" part - sure, maybe young people tend to plan 2 years ahead at a time, but they're really deciding if it's a place they want to settle down in permanently. If they stay 2 more years they may well end up staying 20 more. So I don't think it's at all a stretch to say this is a make or break issue for the city.
  - rhizome 8y ago
    I'm on my third or fourth iteration of watching the waves of carpetbaggers make their way through the city, which is a 150+ year tradition, mind. Not only do the loudest complainers not know enough about homelessness in SF to demand a simple solution that doesn't exist, they're going to be the first people to find a reason to leave. From all outward appearances, they just want to complain. Nothing is "make or break" for a city like SF.

by crsv 8y ago

rhizome 8y ago

This is one of those big daunting problems that feels increasingly make or break for SF as a whole My sense is that it's "make or break" only for people who have been here for three years and are trying to decide whether to remain for two more.

toasterlovin 8y ago
This is only true if you think it's okay that people born in California can't afford to start families there. The state's housing regulations favor older, established people and wealthy newcomers over people born in California. If you really want to make that tradeoff, then go for it, but I don't think most people view the issue through this particular lens. IMO, they should.
dcosson 8y ago
That's kind of the whole point. Is the city full and now only open to the wealthy and people who got lucky enough to buy houses > 5 years ago (or get locked into rent control > 5 years ago), or should it be allowed to grow to welcome new people from around the country and world who want to move here in search of better opportunities? Because people who have lived here 3 years or less by extension includes everyone who doesn't live here yet (as well as basically everyone under 25 unless they grew up here). I would also push back on the "deciding whether to stay for 2 more years" part - sure, maybe young people tend to plan 2 years ahead at a time, but they're really deciding if it's a place they want to settle down in permanently. If they stay 2 more years they may well end up staying 20 more. So I don't think it's at all a stretch to say this is a make or break issue for the city.
- rhizome 8y ago
  I'm on my third or fourth iteration of watching the waves of carpetbaggers make their way through the city, which is a 150+ year tradition, mind. Not only do the loudest complainers not know enough about homelessness in SF to demand a simple solution that doesn't exist, they're going to be the first people to find a reason to leave. From all outward appearances, they just want to complain. Nothing is "make or break" for a city like SF.