8 ms·

Probably a typical case of "Got mine, fuck you". It's like some of the comment seen for the Ontario election. I got my dental insurance through my work, so fuc

by calyth2018 8y ago

Probably a typical case of "Got mine, fuck you". It's like some of the comment seen for the Ontario election. I got my dental insurance through my work, so fuck the other guys, I don't want to pay more taxes.

finaliteration 8y ago
I’ve heard this referred to as “drawbridge thinking” in cases where someone moves to an area, makes sure they have access to whatever they want, and then essentially pulls up the “drawbridge” and says, “No new outsiders allowed! It’s too crowded here!”. I feel like this is essentially what has happened in the Bay Area/SV. Though I live in Portland and it’s just as bad. It’s such bullshit.
- ghouse 8y ago
  Prop 13 in California has the same impact. "I was here first, so don't let my taxes keep pace with inflation -- the newcomers should pay for my police, fire, schools, etc.."
  - finaliteration 8y ago
    “Meanwhile let me raise rents by 20%...”
  - kindatrue 8y ago
    It's really hard for people who move to California and don't hang out with retirees (aka voters) to understand/appreciate this mindset. But it's so prevalent. Classic example: https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/927583483186225152 https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/927583483186225152
  - sbuttgereit 8y ago
    Yes. We should absolutely not allow people to own homes in neighborhoods where they simply can't keep up with the financial realities of the neighborhood. Especially, the older people that maybe once were highly productive but, now, might not be able to as rapidly advance in wages or, God forbid, may even be retired and now on a fixed income; the nerve of those people to think that somehow property ownership entitles them to live in their homes for as long as they want. The community has needs and, as the old saying goes, "on ne saurait faire d'omelette sans casser des œufs"! Imagine how much faster re-gentrification and local government growth could be if you could push the churn of homes up? Clear out the dead-weight I say. Now admittedly, I'm being somewhat of a hypocrite here. I am best described as a marginal homeowner in beautiful San Francisco. I bought a home in a somewhat so-so part of town that was surprisingly affordable, relative speaking, for what we got. And we could afford it, we measured where we were looking, and balanced our expenses including taxes, and made good decisions. But that was more than a decade ago and times have changed over the past few years. Our little neighborhood is on an uptick and getting much more expensive. While that has brought some advantages (lower crime, better shopping)... it means if I were to try and buy my home at today's market rates, I simply couldn't do it. And if the taxes on my place had kept up "with inflation" in local home prices, I'd have to sell. Sure, I'd have a handsome capital gain... much of which I would also have to pay in taxes (the community has needs after all), before having to likely move out of the Bay Area, but... progress. I'm also older... damn near 50! Which means I'm not at the bottom of my earning potential, but at the top. So I'm with you. It's completely unfair that those newcomers should come here and bear the brunt of higher taxes, of course, they should also not think that they can count on stability in tax rates. The community has needs, and you know, progress.
    - onlyrealcuzzo 8y ago
      Great points. It's impossible to know what would happen to the prices in your neighborhood under different conditions. But prices /probably/ wouldn't rise as much if people were forced to sell their homes due to increasing tax burdens. 1) Home owners would new favor development to keep supply high, prices stable, and taxes stable. Who wants to pay more taxes for the same thing? No one. With Prop 13, you get that guaranteed. But everyone else gets fucked. As far as your concerned, who cares? 2) Even though prices would still inevitably rise, it would force those that can't keep up with the increasing taxes to sell, increasing supply and holding down prices.
      - sbuttgereit 8y ago
        First, in both of your points someone gets fucked. As far as you're concerned, who cares, so long as it's the right group getting fucked. Perhaps the real discussion is on why you chose to favor one group (new property owners) at the expense of the other (incumbent property owners). Second, you're conflating issues. Being in favor of Prop 13 is not the same as being against new development. These issues are not the same. Truth is, my neighborhood is one of the few seeing a lot of new development... it's one of the green areas on the map and pretty much all of this development is multi-story/high density housing. I don't necessarily oppose this (I would if it were due to government community redevelopment efforts, special handouts, etc). There would probably be more development if the city was managed more like I would like to see it managed. I am absolutely against the vast majority of regulatory constraint on new development.
        pm90 8y ago
        > First, in both of your points someone gets fucked. As far as you're concerned, who cares, so long as it's the right group getting fucked. Perhaps the real discussion is on why you chose to favor one group (new property owners) at the expense of the other (incumbent property owners). This is a disingenuous characterization of the problem at hand. Its not a question of newcomers getting your single family home from you, its of you selling your home which will likely be redeveloped into higher density housing for a lot more people. And you wouldn't be "fucked": yes you would lose your beautiful single family residence, but more people would be able to afford living in the community in which they are a part of, but can't because of how expensive housing is. On the contrary, by denying newcomers any housing near their workplace, you are fucking up their quality of life immensely: they cannot build equity (prices too high), are forced to commute long distances or are simply excluded from the community because of artificially high home prices, have to pay much more in taxes for services that you use. That is massively fucking a lot of people. This isn't rocket science; it happens all the time in all major cities. Low density gets redeveloped because of changing economic and social conditions. Its how cities evolve. Prop 13 is basically stifling the growth and natural evolution of major cities in all of California, but especially SF.
- kazinator 8y ago
  Not only is it not bullshit, but you've just summarized millions of years of habitat on Planet Earth. Every moderately sophisticated creature protects its territory from inundation by outsiders.
  - pm90 8y ago
    Most moderately sophisticated creatures also use violence and murder to settle disagreements. Are you sure you want to do everything moderately sophisticated creatures do? Or use their actions to justify human actions?
    - kazinator 8y ago
      Why, no, I don't! Why don't you and 17 of your friends make my livingroom your home.
  - finaliteration 8y ago
    Just because something is/was a certain way does not mean it should stay that way. There are a lot of things that exist in a certain state that should definitely change, so implying that something is fine because it’s always been that way is a bit fallacious.
    - kazinator 8y ago
      Not letting others walk over you definitely isn't going away.
nindalf 8y ago
Mildly disagree. If a NIMBY houseowner (along with everyone else in the area) agrees to change the zoning laws and allow high density housing, that only benefits the houseowners who sell their land and move on. Everyone else could _possibly_ see their house value drop because of increased supply and sprawl. But it's a slightly worse deal for these homeowners because a potential developer could tell them "hey, why don't you sell to us while prices are high? Once we're done building, prices will fall" I'm not defending what these homeowners are doing, but I disagreed with the notion that they're not behaving rationally. IMO, they are.
- clairity 8y ago
  it's the disregard for your fellow human (selfishness) that the parent was reacting to, not (wholly) irrational behavior. i'd argue it's irrational to be so blatantly selfish because it ignores community members, creates bad feelings and ultimately, creates enemies. considering that, homeowners would be better off accepting some level of infill in their neighborhoods.
- saosebastiao 8y ago
  Yes, you are right. As it stands right now, upzones are valuable because high density land is scarce, upzones are rare, and the price difference between higher density zoned land and lower density zoned land is so drastic. A much larger scale upzone would tank the value of high density zoned land to a much lower equilibrium. The more important question is why we should settle for policy based on the economic rationality of people whose interests hurt society? Should we cave to the Koch Brothers too?
- ant6n 8y ago
  How's increased density "sprawl"?
Chathamization 8y ago
I mean, everyone does that at some point. Just about no one would want to see their neighborhood turn into Hong Kong's Walled City, even if that meant squeezing in a few people. Different individuals naturally have different red lines - some might not want to see a historic single-family house neighborhood demolished to make apartment buildings. Others might be OK with that, but not want to see their neighborhood park destroyed to make a big box store. Others might be OK with that, but might not want to see the schoolyard where their kids play cut to a fraction of its size to make room for more development. There seems to be a general lack of empathy when these issues are discussed - if the people who live there find think something is important but I personally don't care about it, then the people who live there are just selfish NIMBY types.
- antris 8y ago
  > Just about no one would want to see their neighborhood turn into ... Just about no one would want to see their rent go up year by year either. These interests should be balanced by the market, and now legislation is tilting the table in favor of people who want everything to stay the same way it has been.
- romwell 8y ago
  >Just about no one would want to see their neighborhood turn into Hong Kong's Walled City, What about Paris or Stockholm? There are reasons why people love traveling and walking European cities, but nobody in their right mind would travel around San Jose on foot. Five-story multi-use apartment buildings aren't a blight, and neither are working public transportation systems. I can't understand why so many people are excited to live in an industrial park/parking lot, but to each their own, I guess.
kindatrue 8y ago
There's also people who severely disconnected from reality because they're homeowners/retired. Like this former Mayor of a Silicon Valley city who opposes building housing because it will never drop prices down to the rent he used to pay... in 1978. https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/998998249833984000 https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/998998249833984000
ghosterrific 8y ago
It cannot be compared. The dental plan at work is factored into your compensation. Stealing more money from taxpayers to pay for others is not a solution. Your comment is a non-sequitor.
DamnYuppie 8y ago
I find it odd that people are so upset that others are looking out for their own quality of life and financial investments. They are under no obligation to make things better for others yet worse for themselves. Very few humans would actively engage in similar behavior if the roles were reversed.
- nerfhammer 8y ago
  username is appropriate
- white-flame 8y ago
  Moreso, I know and know of numerous people who preached about shared supporting of society and anti-capitalism... until they made a good chunk of money. Then they went off to their gated community walled gardens and started complaining about taxes. These individual vs societal beliefs aren't constants. They're vehemently reflective of an individual's very current situation.

finaliteration 8y ago

I’ve heard this referred to as “drawbridge thinking” in cases where someone moves to an area, makes sure they have access to whatever they want, and then essentially pulls up the “drawbridge” and says, “No new outsiders allowed! It’s too crowded here!”. I feel like this is essentially what has happened in the Bay Area/SV. Though I live in Portland and it’s just as bad. It’s such bullshit.

ghouse 8y ago
Prop 13 in California has the same impact. "I was here first, so don't let my taxes keep pace with inflation -- the newcomers should pay for my police, fire, schools, etc.."
- finaliteration 8y ago
  “Meanwhile let me raise rents by 20%...”
- kindatrue 8y ago
  It's really hard for people who move to California and don't hang out with retirees (aka voters) to understand/appreciate this mindset. But it's so prevalent. Classic example: https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/927583483186225152 https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/927583483186225152
- sbuttgereit 8y ago
  Yes. We should absolutely not allow people to own homes in neighborhoods where they simply can't keep up with the financial realities of the neighborhood. Especially, the older people that maybe once were highly productive but, now, might not be able to as rapidly advance in wages or, God forbid, may even be retired and now on a fixed income; the nerve of those people to think that somehow property ownership entitles them to live in their homes for as long as they want. The community has needs and, as the old saying goes, "on ne saurait faire d'omelette sans casser des œufs"! Imagine how much faster re-gentrification and local government growth could be if you could push the churn of homes up? Clear out the dead-weight I say. Now admittedly, I'm being somewhat of a hypocrite here. I am best described as a marginal homeowner in beautiful San Francisco. I bought a home in a somewhat so-so part of town that was surprisingly affordable, relative speaking, for what we got. And we could afford it, we measured where we were looking, and balanced our expenses including taxes, and made good decisions. But that was more than a decade ago and times have changed over the past few years. Our little neighborhood is on an uptick and getting much more expensive. While that has brought some advantages (lower crime, better shopping)... it means if I were to try and buy my home at today's market rates, I simply couldn't do it. And if the taxes on my place had kept up "with inflation" in local home prices, I'd have to sell. Sure, I'd have a handsome capital gain... much of which I would also have to pay in taxes (the community has needs after all), before having to likely move out of the Bay Area, but... progress. I'm also older... damn near 50! Which means I'm not at the bottom of my earning potential, but at the top. So I'm with you. It's completely unfair that those newcomers should come here and bear the brunt of higher taxes, of course, they should also not think that they can count on stability in tax rates. The community has needs, and you know, progress.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 8y ago
    Great points. It's impossible to know what would happen to the prices in your neighborhood under different conditions. But prices /probably/ wouldn't rise as much if people were forced to sell their homes due to increasing tax burdens. 1) Home owners would new favor development to keep supply high, prices stable, and taxes stable. Who wants to pay more taxes for the same thing? No one. With Prop 13, you get that guaranteed. But everyone else gets fucked. As far as your concerned, who cares? 2) Even though prices would still inevitably rise, it would force those that can't keep up with the increasing taxes to sell, increasing supply and holding down prices.
    - sbuttgereit 8y ago
      First, in both of your points someone gets fucked. As far as you're concerned, who cares, so long as it's the right group getting fucked. Perhaps the real discussion is on why you chose to favor one group (new property owners) at the expense of the other (incumbent property owners). Second, you're conflating issues. Being in favor of Prop 13 is not the same as being against new development. These issues are not the same. Truth is, my neighborhood is one of the few seeing a lot of new development... it's one of the green areas on the map and pretty much all of this development is multi-story/high density housing. I don't necessarily oppose this (I would if it were due to government community redevelopment efforts, special handouts, etc). There would probably be more development if the city was managed more like I would like to see it managed. I am absolutely against the vast majority of regulatory constraint on new development.
      - pm90 8y ago
        > First, in both of your points someone gets fucked. As far as you're concerned, who cares, so long as it's the right group getting fucked. Perhaps the real discussion is on why you chose to favor one group (new property owners) at the expense of the other (incumbent property owners). This is a disingenuous characterization of the problem at hand. Its not a question of newcomers getting your single family home from you, its of you selling your home which will likely be redeveloped into higher density housing for a lot more people. And you wouldn't be "fucked": yes you would lose your beautiful single family residence, but more people would be able to afford living in the community in which they are a part of, but can't because of how expensive housing is. On the contrary, by denying newcomers any housing near their workplace, you are fucking up their quality of life immensely: they cannot build equity (prices too high), are forced to commute long distances or are simply excluded from the community because of artificially high home prices, have to pay much more in taxes for services that you use. That is massively fucking a lot of people. This isn't rocket science; it happens all the time in all major cities. Low density gets redeveloped because of changing economic and social conditions. Its how cities evolve. Prop 13 is basically stifling the growth and natural evolution of major cities in all of California, but especially SF.
kazinator 8y ago
Not only is it not bullshit, but you've just summarized millions of years of habitat on Planet Earth. Every moderately sophisticated creature protects its territory from inundation by outsiders.
- pm90 8y ago
  Most moderately sophisticated creatures also use violence and murder to settle disagreements. Are you sure you want to do everything moderately sophisticated creatures do? Or use their actions to justify human actions?
  - kazinator 8y ago
    Why, no, I don't! Why don't you and 17 of your friends make my livingroom your home.
- finaliteration 8y ago
  Just because something is/was a certain way does not mean it should stay that way. There are a lot of things that exist in a certain state that should definitely change, so implying that something is fine because it’s always been that way is a bit fallacious.
  - kazinator 8y ago
    Not letting others walk over you definitely isn't going away.

nindalf 8y ago

Mildly disagree. If a NIMBY houseowner (along with everyone else in the area) agrees to change the zoning laws and allow high density housing, that only benefits the houseowners who sell their land and move on. Everyone else could _possibly_ see their house value drop because of increased supply and sprawl. But it's a slightly worse deal for these homeowners because a potential developer could tell them "hey, why don't you sell to us while prices are high? Once we're done building, prices will fall" I'm not defending what these homeowners are doing, but I disagreed with the notion that they're not behaving rationally. IMO, they are.

clairity 8y ago
it's the disregard for your fellow human (selfishness) that the parent was reacting to, not (wholly) irrational behavior. i'd argue it's irrational to be so blatantly selfish because it ignores community members, creates bad feelings and ultimately, creates enemies. considering that, homeowners would be better off accepting some level of infill in their neighborhoods.
saosebastiao 8y ago
Yes, you are right. As it stands right now, upzones are valuable because high density land is scarce, upzones are rare, and the price difference between higher density zoned land and lower density zoned land is so drastic. A much larger scale upzone would tank the value of high density zoned land to a much lower equilibrium. The more important question is why we should settle for policy based on the economic rationality of people whose interests hurt society? Should we cave to the Koch Brothers too?
ant6n 8y ago
How's increased density "sprawl"?

Chathamization 8y ago

I mean, everyone does that at some point. Just about no one would want to see their neighborhood turn into Hong Kong's Walled City, even if that meant squeezing in a few people. Different individuals naturally have different red lines - some might not want to see a historic single-family house neighborhood demolished to make apartment buildings. Others might be OK with that, but not want to see their neighborhood park destroyed to make a big box store. Others might be OK with that, but might not want to see the schoolyard where their kids play cut to a fraction of its size to make room for more development. There seems to be a general lack of empathy when these issues are discussed - if the people who live there find think something is important but I personally don't care about it, then the people who live there are just selfish NIMBY types.

antris 8y ago
> Just about no one would want to see their neighborhood turn into ... Just about no one would want to see their rent go up year by year either. These interests should be balanced by the market, and now legislation is tilting the table in favor of people who want everything to stay the same way it has been.
romwell 8y ago
>Just about no one would want to see their neighborhood turn into Hong Kong's Walled City, What about Paris or Stockholm? There are reasons why people love traveling and walking European cities, but nobody in their right mind would travel around San Jose on foot. Five-story multi-use apartment buildings aren't a blight, and neither are working public transportation systems. I can't understand why so many people are excited to live in an industrial park/parking lot, but to each their own, I guess.

kindatrue 8y ago

There's also people who severely disconnected from reality because they're homeowners/retired. Like this former Mayor of a Silicon Valley city who opposes building housing because it will never drop prices down to the rent he used to pay... in 1978. https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/998998249833984000 https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/998998249833984000

ghosterrific 8y ago

It cannot be compared. The dental plan at work is factored into your compensation. Stealing more money from taxpayers to pay for others is not a solution. Your comment is a non-sequitor.

DamnYuppie 8y ago

I find it odd that people are so upset that others are looking out for their own quality of life and financial investments. They are under no obligation to make things better for others yet worse for themselves. Very few humans would actively engage in similar behavior if the roles were reversed.

nerfhammer 8y ago
username is appropriate
white-flame 8y ago
Moreso, I know and know of numerous people who preached about shared supporting of society and anti-capitalism... until they made a good chunk of money. Then they went off to their gated community walled gardens and started complaining about taxes. These individual vs societal beliefs aren't constants. They're vehemently reflective of an individual's very current situation.