3 ms·

How do people not earning $100,000 afford to live there? They commute 2 hours each way (for real). I think it's unreasonable to expect a live-and-let live att

How do people not earning $100,000 afford to live there? They commute 2 hours each way (for real). I think it's unreasonable to expect a live-and-let live attitude to NIMBYs on online forums, while NIMBYs are pricing out the people who work in their neighborhoods through housing policy. Sure there are other issues like global warming but it's not like having a place to live is a trivial issue. It's more than reasonable for people to care or be upset about it. I'm talking mostly about the Bay Area here which I'm most familiar with, where a rule allowing you to build if you follow every law to the letter was shot down (building anything is a guaranteed long political fight), and minor things like having one apartment level above a shop are fought tooth and nail. I actually can somewhat respect the position, that young people should just move away and other places in the country need to deal with growth. But I think to do that properly, you should still zone for a proportionate amount of housing as you do office space (jobs). And if you don't want growth, do little of either. But approving lots of jobs, not zoning/approving the necessary housing, and then making excuses/blaming others as there's a shortage and prices/commutes go up - it's hard to see it as anything other than a massive political failure. Maybe calling this policy combination NIMBY is painting NIMBYs with a broad brush. But whatever you call it I think it's reasonable to be upset by it.

carapace 8y ago
> They commute 2 hours each way (for real). But that's garbage. Have you tried it? It sucks. > NIMBYs are pricing out the people who work in their neighborhoods through housing policy. Well no, you're wrong and that's my point. Wages drive rent rate increases according to the data going back 70 years. If all the people you call pejorative names suddenly saw things your way and we all changed the zoning and laws and such overnight AND all the construction companies in the entire state came to the Bay Area and built nothing but apartment buildings all day every day for the next fifty years then MAYBE rents would level off, or at least rise more slowly. Please stop calling your neighbors names for liking their neighborhood. It's not nice and it doesn't win arguments. And you're wrong anyway. We could build at the fastest conceivable rate and it would not solve the problem. > But approving lots of jobs, not zoning/approving the necessary housing, and then making excuses/blaming others as there's a shortage and prices/commutes go up Whoa dude. Who is this super-human political dynamo who has done all of this? > a massive political failure Yes. And calling people names won't help. Not even a little bit. > painting NIMBYs with a broad brush More like painting with a hose.
- throwaway34241 8y ago
  I'm not calling you names or even talking about your political views (since I don't know them). I'm talking about the actual housing policies of many cities in the bay area, which are extremely against adding new housing, most commonly characterized as NIMBY. It looks like you view this term to be offensive, I didn't realize. My key point was about the ratio of jobs to housing. It may not be desirable or realistic to expand the overall population of the area past a certain amount. But I think it is realistic to zone/approve enough housing, to match the amount of jobs that are zoned/approved (through office space). Overall, the bay area has been adding much more jobs than housing, and I think this is a major factor in the housing problem aside from wages. And the result of this is that more and more of people's paycheck goes to housing, they have to commute long distances, etc. Rather than opposing housing when there is a shortage, I'd rather see more effort put into opposing new office space instead, and when housing has caught up cities could facilitate a public dialogue about what residents want with regards to growth etc.
  - carapace 8y ago
    Parent comment I was originally responding to opens with: > This is more the fault of NIMBYs and supply&demand-denialists... The term "NIMBY" is used IMO to caricature and demonize people who have done nothing worse than own their own homes and desire some control over their neighborhoods, towns, and cities. Land use is hard enough to figure out without painting our neighbors with a pejorative brush. > the actual housing policies of many cities in the bay area, which are extremely against adding new housing I agree. > most commonly characterized as NIMBY That's the idea I am decrying. Please don't do that. > It looks like you view this term to be offensive, I didn't realize. I do. Worse, it's actively working against mutual comprehension and effective political solutions. We have the technology: "Four-story Berkeley building built in four days" https://sf.curbed.com/2018/8/6/17656118/fast-apartment-residential-building-berkeley-patrick-kennedy-prefab https://sf.curbed.com/2018/8/6/17656118/fast-apartment-resid... The solution we need is political and getting mass cohesion at the level required takes positive uplifting values, not name calling and caricatures. > My key point was about the ratio of jobs to housing. It may not be desirable or realistic to expand the overall population of the area past a certain amount. But I think it is realistic to zone/approve enough housing, to match the amount of jobs that are zoned/approved (through office space). Overall, the bay area has been adding much more jobs than housing, and I think this is a major factor in the housing problem aside from wages. And the result of this is that more and more of people's paycheck goes to housing, they have to commute long distances, etc. Yes, absolutely! It's been easier and more profitable for developers to build skyscrapers and office buildings for decades, so that's what we've got. I'm not denying that there are folks who don't look much farther than their own backyards when it comes to their votes on land use issues. I'm saying that, in order to make any real progress, we have to understand each other and work together. > Rather than opposing housing when there is a shortage, I'd rather see more effort put into opposing new office space instead, and when housing has caught up cities could facilitate a public dialogue about what residents want with regards to growth etc. Legend has it that SimCity was developed to explore the ideas of Christopher Alexander's Pattern Language. I think we should play a giant, realistic simulation of the city, region, state, biome, nation, continent, globe, all together in a MMORPG. By the time we have hammered out what we want the future to look like the robots will be able to build it for us in a twinkling. I estimate ~30 +/- 15 years if the weather remains (relatively) stable.

carapace 8y ago

> They commute 2 hours each way (for real). But that's garbage. Have you tried it? It sucks. > NIMBYs are pricing out the people who work in their neighborhoods through housing policy. Well no, you're wrong and that's my point. Wages drive rent rate increases according to the data going back 70 years. If all the people you call pejorative names suddenly saw things your way and we all changed the zoning and laws and such overnight AND all the construction companies in the entire state came to the Bay Area and built nothing but apartment buildings all day every day for the next fifty years then MAYBE rents would level off, or at least rise more slowly. Please stop calling your neighbors names for liking their neighborhood. It's not nice and it doesn't win arguments. And you're wrong anyway. We could build at the fastest conceivable rate and it would not solve the problem. > But approving lots of jobs, not zoning/approving the necessary housing, and then making excuses/blaming others as there's a shortage and prices/commutes go up Whoa dude. Who is this super-human political dynamo who has done all of this? > a massive political failure Yes. And calling people names won't help. Not even a little bit. > painting NIMBYs with a broad brush More like painting with a hose.

throwaway34241 8y ago
I'm not calling you names or even talking about your political views (since I don't know them). I'm talking about the actual housing policies of many cities in the bay area, which are extremely against adding new housing, most commonly characterized as NIMBY. It looks like you view this term to be offensive, I didn't realize. My key point was about the ratio of jobs to housing. It may not be desirable or realistic to expand the overall population of the area past a certain amount. But I think it is realistic to zone/approve enough housing, to match the amount of jobs that are zoned/approved (through office space). Overall, the bay area has been adding much more jobs than housing, and I think this is a major factor in the housing problem aside from wages. And the result of this is that more and more of people's paycheck goes to housing, they have to commute long distances, etc. Rather than opposing housing when there is a shortage, I'd rather see more effort put into opposing new office space instead, and when housing has caught up cities could facilitate a public dialogue about what residents want with regards to growth etc.
- carapace 8y ago
  Parent comment I was originally responding to opens with: > This is more the fault of NIMBYs and supply&demand-denialists... The term "NIMBY" is used IMO to caricature and demonize people who have done nothing worse than own their own homes and desire some control over their neighborhoods, towns, and cities. Land use is hard enough to figure out without painting our neighbors with a pejorative brush. > the actual housing policies of many cities in the bay area, which are extremely against adding new housing I agree. > most commonly characterized as NIMBY That's the idea I am decrying. Please don't do that. > It looks like you view this term to be offensive, I didn't realize. I do. Worse, it's actively working against mutual comprehension and effective political solutions. We have the technology: "Four-story Berkeley building built in four days" https://sf.curbed.com/2018/8/6/17656118/fast-apartment-residential-building-berkeley-patrick-kennedy-prefab https://sf.curbed.com/2018/8/6/17656118/fast-apartment-resid... The solution we need is political and getting mass cohesion at the level required takes positive uplifting values, not name calling and caricatures. > My key point was about the ratio of jobs to housing. It may not be desirable or realistic to expand the overall population of the area past a certain amount. But I think it is realistic to zone/approve enough housing, to match the amount of jobs that are zoned/approved (through office space). Overall, the bay area has been adding much more jobs than housing, and I think this is a major factor in the housing problem aside from wages. And the result of this is that more and more of people's paycheck goes to housing, they have to commute long distances, etc. Yes, absolutely! It's been easier and more profitable for developers to build skyscrapers and office buildings for decades, so that's what we've got. I'm not denying that there are folks who don't look much farther than their own backyards when it comes to their votes on land use issues. I'm saying that, in order to make any real progress, we have to understand each other and work together. > Rather than opposing housing when there is a shortage, I'd rather see more effort put into opposing new office space instead, and when housing has caught up cities could facilitate a public dialogue about what residents want with regards to growth etc. Legend has it that SimCity was developed to explore the ideas of Christopher Alexander's Pattern Language. I think we should play a giant, realistic simulation of the city, region, state, biome, nation, continent, globe, all together in a MMORPG. By the time we have hammered out what we want the future to look like the robots will be able to build it for us in a twinkling. I estimate ~30 +/- 15 years if the weather remains (relatively) stable.