4 ms·

It completely missed the point that allowing more people to live in the Bay Area will likely degrade the quality of life for the people that live there now. Sur

by rb808 8y ago

It completely missed the point that allowing more people to live in the Bay Area will likely degrade the quality of life for the people that live there now. Sure you could turn Palo Alto into a Manhattan look alike - why would current residents want that?

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
We're not yet a Soviet bloc country. Deciding who's to be allowed to live somewhere is not quite democratic? Nor free market, nor capitalist. This idea is pernicious, that because I can think of a better way for things to work, there should be rules to make them work that way. Its not in alignment with US values, yet so many folks are on that bandwagon. Part of the great divide in US politics at the moment.
- rb808 8y ago
  You're free to live there, just pay up. I'd like a Malibu beach house too but it isn't going to ever happen.
- isoskeles 8y ago
  We're not deciding who gets to live here, we're deciding what gets to be built here. It's a fairly common idea in most cities. On a case-by-case basis, San Francisco gets it wrong quite a bit. A most recent example is the "historic" laundromat that some city officials have prevented from being developed into more housing.
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    Yeah that's all foreign to me, as I live in a county that has no real code and no inspectors. I build what I like on my property. Also, responding to the comment that did go there, talking about who's allowed
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      > Yeah that's all foreign to me, as I live in a county that has no real code and no inspectors. I build what I like on my property. Really? If you wanted to build an abattoir, or a factory, on the property your house is on, that would be allowed?
      - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
        You still have to have county zoning approval to put in a business. Or live down a quiet lane and don't say anything.
        emodendroket 8y ago
        In that case, all that's happening is that the county is making the determination instead of the municipality. Again, there is agreement that there should be some kind of control on what can be built where, and the disagreement is on what that should look like.
  - nerfhammer 8y ago
    I have seen people express a desire to be able to choose what "kind" of person should be allowed to move to San Francisco.
emodendroket 8y ago
I think it got to that one in bullet 5b.
Symmetry 8y ago
It's certainly true that allowing in more people would impose a cost on the current residents. But you can't stop people from moving towards economic opportunity without putting up something like a border wall around SF. And also, how would you feel about rich people saying that they like having lots of money, and how are these poor people to demand that they give up money in taxes when that would degrade their quality of life? It's totally true that for rich people paying taxes will make them worse off. But that's to a lesser extent than the extent to which it will make poor people better off. So I don't think it's illegitimate for rich people to be forced by the electorate to pay taxes at a higher rate even if rich people don't want that. And I don't think it's illegitimate for California to force SF to build local housing for the people currently commuting 2 hours to jobs in the city even if that makes current residents a bit worse off.

by rb808 8y ago

JoeAltmaier 8y ago

We're not yet a Soviet bloc country. Deciding who's to be allowed to live somewhere is not quite democratic? Nor free market, nor capitalist. This idea is pernicious, that because I can think of a better way for things to work, there should be rules to make them work that way. Its not in alignment with US values, yet so many folks are on that bandwagon. Part of the great divide in US politics at the moment.

rb808 8y ago
You're free to live there, just pay up. I'd like a Malibu beach house too but it isn't going to ever happen.
isoskeles 8y ago
We're not deciding who gets to live here, we're deciding what gets to be built here. It's a fairly common idea in most cities. On a case-by-case basis, San Francisco gets it wrong quite a bit. A most recent example is the "historic" laundromat that some city officials have prevented from being developed into more housing.
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  Yeah that's all foreign to me, as I live in a county that has no real code and no inspectors. I build what I like on my property. Also, responding to the comment that did go there, talking about who's allowed
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    > Yeah that's all foreign to me, as I live in a county that has no real code and no inspectors. I build what I like on my property. Really? If you wanted to build an abattoir, or a factory, on the property your house is on, that would be allowed?
    - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
      You still have to have county zoning approval to put in a business. Or live down a quiet lane and don't say anything.
      - emodendroket 8y ago
        In that case, all that's happening is that the county is making the determination instead of the municipality. Again, there is agreement that there should be some kind of control on what can be built where, and the disagreement is on what that should look like.
- nerfhammer 8y ago
  I have seen people express a desire to be able to choose what "kind" of person should be allowed to move to San Francisco.

emodendroket 8y ago

I think it got to that one in bullet 5b.

Symmetry 8y ago

It's certainly true that allowing in more people would impose a cost on the current residents. But you can't stop people from moving towards economic opportunity without putting up something like a border wall around SF. And also, how would you feel about rich people saying that they like having lots of money, and how are these poor people to demand that they give up money in taxes when that would degrade their quality of life? It's totally true that for rich people paying taxes will make them worse off. But that's to a lesser extent than the extent to which it will make poor people better off. So I don't think it's illegitimate for rich people to be forced by the electorate to pay taxes at a higher rate even if rich people don't want that. And I don't think it's illegitimate for California to force SF to build local housing for the people currently commuting 2 hours to jobs in the city even if that makes current residents a bit worse off.