6 ms·

To live in, In SF. your choices are a 1.5 million dollar condo or a 50$ dollar tent. Seriously people, we need to allow for more choices than that. I'm sure b

To live in, In SF. your choices are a 1.5 million dollar condo or a 50$ dollar tent. Seriously people, we need to allow for more choices than that. I'm sure builders and entrepreneurs would line up around the block to build solutions that are cheaper and more cost effective, but you first have to make it legal (get rid of the mountains of regulations and zoning headaches that make this problem so insurmountable), without that, will never make any progress on this problem. Why do you think the internet took off as quickly as it did? or the facebook app store in 2008, etc. It's because there were no regulations (or almost none). This allowed thinks to take off very quickly. Let's designate a section of several cities, say a 1 square mile section as regulation free, with an absolute minimum of zoning requirements, and almost 0 regulations. Then let the market have at it, see what gets built. Sure, maybe you don't like what happens in version 1. But, if we never iterate on this problem, we'll never make progress on it and in a 100 years we'll still be talking about this same self imposed problem which is completely solvable.

codydh 8y ago
The cost of your "regulation free zone" will likely be measured in human lives. Does that seem like an acceptable risk?
- gtCameron 8y ago
  The cost of the current homeless situation can also be measured in human lives
- megaman8 8y ago
  That's just in the beginning. Not every regulation saves lives - some are just on the books to protect rent seeking entities and lobbyists, and some are just there because they've always been there.
  - mwfunk 8y ago
    This is true of course, but it's always a giant red flag for me whenever someone refers to the vague concept of "regulations" as being the problem, vs. complaining about specific regulations. Complaining about the very concept of regulations seems really naive, like precoscious high schooler who just had his mind blown by Atlas Shrugged naive. The current POTUS made a campaign promise that he would only allow a regulation to be added if two more were eliminated. This is asinine. If there are unnecessary regulations, get rid of them. Get rid of them because they're unnecessary or counterproductive, not because they fall into a category of legislation referred to as "regulations". Losing a regulation isn't an inherently good thing any more than gaining one is an inherently bad thing. The only thing that matters is whether or not it's a net positive, and that's specific to each regulation. It's like saying, "there's too many laws! We need to get rid of some laws!", and proceeding to randomly choose laws to get rid of until numberOfLaws <= totallyArbitraryMaximumLawCountThatSomeoneMadeUp.
  - Nomentatus 8y ago
    "Regulatory theater" with many laws, almost no money for enforcement, and small penalties that are never updated for inflation seems very common to me. Fewer, well-chosen regulations with very strong penalties that easily pay for strict enforcement activity - that's much rarer; and I'm cynical enough about how gets to influence lawmakers, that I know why that is.
- virmundi 8y ago
  Ah, the “you just want people to die” argument. I wondered when that would show up. How about a largely deregulated area where you can mix housing and business zoning. Like we use to with downtowns. At the same time get rid of the caps on building height. Tokyo has tall buildings and earthquakes. Allow SF to modernize. A 60 story apartment building neutralize the cost of the property. Another option is to make SF a stronghold for the rich. Nothing wrong with that either. Push the poor out to locations they can afford. Few will die in either scenario.
  - dredmorbius 8y ago
    "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - virmundi 8y ago
      The OP literally made the argument that, in the extreme, people must have to die if regulations are relaxed. OP did not assume good faith. OP pushed the argument to the extreme. I responded by pointing out that out. I appreciate civility, but won’t assume good faith when the other participant has shown bad faith.
      - yesenadam 8y ago
        "Ah..I wondered when that would show up." was just being condescending and snarky. "But they started it!" is not a defence.
        virmundi 8y ago
        Nope. I’ve just been here for a while. If you take the conversations on HN and put the them through a Bayesian Network, you can tell as soon as “deregulation” appears, the conversation will take a turn for “people will die” worse.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  It's possible that innovations established in the the area that is absent of regulation may save lives, possibly more lives than would be saved by applying the preexisting regulation to that area.
- chaostheory 8y ago
  While there is some truth that some regulation is needed to account for living in the Ring of Fire and also for SuperFund sites created in the 20th century, NIMBYs tend to overly abuse environmental impact concerns in order to stop high density housing development and even business development; which has helped exacerbate the housing crisis.
jvagner 8y ago
I lived in a $3000/mo condo that was a 45 minute BART ride away. By myself. Without stock options. There are ways to live in the bay, but I'm looking forward to SF trying new ways to content with the street life problems there. Ultimately, it was definitely a discouraging element of life in the city.
diablerouge 8y ago
I think you're underestimating the real estate market. A significant reason new developments cost so much is that the land they are built upon costs so much. For example, in Portland Oregon, where I live, most new developments are being built on expensive real estate in central areas. As a result the apartments built there, even if they aren't particularly nice, end up going for high amounts. This is due to non-physical assets, like location and proximity to public transportation. Your solution would give free reign to developers to cut costs and still rent the housing out for exorbitant amounts because the housing market in SF is already so ridiculous. It would take a lot more than 1 square mile to significantly affect the market.
- megaman8 8y ago
  Then start new cities in open areas and create incentives (just in the beginning) for business to move jobs there. There's so much open space surrounding the bay area. In the east bay, From our clogged 6 lane highways, i can see nothing but green and yellow for miles as far as the eye can see.
- jaredklewis 8y ago
  I have friends in Tokyo renting 1 bedrooms in the city center for $500 ~ $900 month. Those buildings were not built as affordable housing. They became affordable housing when other developers built newer, nicer buildings somewhere else in Tokyo. Older buildings had to lower prices to keep tenants coming. Unless there is a literally infinite supply of rich people, I don’t see how increasing supply cannot create more affordable housing. Likewise, land values are so high because the completion over developable land is so fierce. As with buildings, increasing the supply of developable land will also lower prices.
  - nradov 8y ago
    It's counter intuitive but sometimes adding supply actually increases demand. Of course at some point you do run out of rich people, but there are a lot of rich people now so that can take a long, long time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand
canhascodez 8y ago
No, anarchy is not a solution to over-regulation. If it were, then we would not have regulations. Markets are not a solution for all problems: market failures are quite real, and no, they are not all caused by government.
- twblalock 8y ago
  > Markets are not a solution for all problems: market failures are quite real, and no, they are not all caused by government. This particular market failure is definitely caused by government.
  - canhascodez 8y ago
    Homelessness never existed before government regulations?
    - dredmorbius 8y ago
      Not answering your question directly, but the homeless crisis in the US seems to have hit the radar in the early 1980s. Part of that may be changing terminology -- earlier use of "homeless" tends to focus on "people made homeless" (or "... left ...") after some calamity: structure fire, flood, hurricane, etc. In the 1980s "homeless" became a chronic condition. Other terms may have existed for the long-term unhoused. I'm not aware of them. What specifically changed, I'm not certain, though circumstances leading to the role of real estate as an asset rather than a utility may be part of that. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=homeless%2C%20homelessness&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Chomeless%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Chomelessness%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=homeless%2C%20...
    - twblalock 8y ago
      > Homelessness never existed before government regulations? The context of the parent comment is high real estate prices in San Francisco, which are caused by government regulations.
toasterlovin 8y ago
FWIW, people who have a problem with street people are largely not concerned with people living in unconventional shelters (such as tents and cardboard boxes). They're concerned with what street people do. Drug use, syringes left on the ground, shit and piss everywhere, piles of trash, theft, vandalism, etc.
- mwfunk 8y ago
  Agreed- a lot of people (on HN at least) are hypersensitive to any suggestion that any homeless people are voluntarily homeless, dangerous to themselves or others, or engage in any activities that everyone living around them would prefer they not engage in. I get it; acknowledging that can be a slippery slope towards demonizing all homeless people, which in turn could lead to people rationalizing not trying to help the situation, or dealing with it in ways that don't help those in need. But it's dishonest, and it's a weird sort of virtue signaling to try to shame anyone who says they don't like wading around in syringes and human waste and clearly mentally ill panhandlers when they visit SF. Mass homelessness is absolutely a problem not just for the homeless themselves, but for everyone in a city. There's nothing wrong with saying that mass homelessness makes a city a worse place for everyone, not just the homeless themselves. Accepting that makes it a lot easier to motivate people to actually do things to improve the situation. Anecdotally, it's an issue where people tend to hold extreme positions with no middle ground- either SF's homeless are primarily noble beings fallen on hard times who need our help, or (the other extreme view) they're primarily panhandlers taking advantage of local sympathies and weather and are fine with sleeping in doorways and pooping in alleys if it means they don't have to have jobs. In reality it's some combination, but I have no idea what the demographics are or if anyone even knows. If there's no common ground with how people define the problem, there's no agreement on the solution. It sucks but if people don't view it as a huge gray area with multiple valid perspectives, it can't ever get fixed in a meaningful way. People will just continue arguing over whether to arrest them all or throw money at them, and the problem will persist indefinitely. Having said that, I really hope the additional funding approved by voters last week turns out to be a step in the right direction that makes a tangible positive difference for everyone in SF, homeless or not. I have no problem with throwing money at the situation if it actually helps.
- 8y ago
nyghtly 8y ago
I agree that removing restrictive zoning requirements from suburban neighborhoods (which prevent the construction of apartments, for example), would go a long way to address the lack of housing, but it wouldn't fix everything. To assume so is to oversimplify the problem. You still need antipoverty programs and a social safety net. Not to mention that trying to change zoning laws in suburban neighborhoods is to fight a losing battle. "The researchers combed three years worth of meeting minutes from 97 cities and towns in the region, and found nearly two-thirds of residents who stood up to speak about proposed housing developments did so to oppose them, while just 14 percent spoke in support." [1] https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2018/08/30/researchers-examine-nimby-factor/uVws4Lrm6Sa2qa6UdyHIiO/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2018/08/30/researchers-...
badpun 8y ago
> Sure, maybe you don't like what happens in version 1. But, if we never iterate on this problem, we'll never make progress on it and in a 100 years we'll still be talking about this same self imposed problem which is completely solvable. I think the iteration already happened. The v1 was sometime at the XIX century and were currently and v1000 or something.
jmcqk6 8y ago
It is perfectly possible to have too many regulations, but that doesn't mean that the answer is no regulations. The simple fact is that we (human beings) have demonstrated quite well that when there are no rules, exploitative power structures form very quickly and do not self correct. Not to mention things like dealing with the problem of the commons. Regulations can be useful, since none of us are saints, they are required.

codydh 8y ago

The cost of your "regulation free zone" will likely be measured in human lives. Does that seem like an acceptable risk?

gtCameron 8y ago
The cost of the current homeless situation can also be measured in human lives
megaman8 8y ago
That's just in the beginning. Not every regulation saves lives - some are just on the books to protect rent seeking entities and lobbyists, and some are just there because they've always been there.
- mwfunk 8y ago
  This is true of course, but it's always a giant red flag for me whenever someone refers to the vague concept of "regulations" as being the problem, vs. complaining about specific regulations. Complaining about the very concept of regulations seems really naive, like precoscious high schooler who just had his mind blown by Atlas Shrugged naive. The current POTUS made a campaign promise that he would only allow a regulation to be added if two more were eliminated. This is asinine. If there are unnecessary regulations, get rid of them. Get rid of them because they're unnecessary or counterproductive, not because they fall into a category of legislation referred to as "regulations". Losing a regulation isn't an inherently good thing any more than gaining one is an inherently bad thing. The only thing that matters is whether or not it's a net positive, and that's specific to each regulation. It's like saying, "there's too many laws! We need to get rid of some laws!", and proceeding to randomly choose laws to get rid of until numberOfLaws <= totallyArbitraryMaximumLawCountThatSomeoneMadeUp.
- Nomentatus 8y ago
  "Regulatory theater" with many laws, almost no money for enforcement, and small penalties that are never updated for inflation seems very common to me. Fewer, well-chosen regulations with very strong penalties that easily pay for strict enforcement activity - that's much rarer; and I'm cynical enough about how gets to influence lawmakers, that I know why that is.
virmundi 8y ago
Ah, the “you just want people to die” argument. I wondered when that would show up. How about a largely deregulated area where you can mix housing and business zoning. Like we use to with downtowns. At the same time get rid of the caps on building height. Tokyo has tall buildings and earthquakes. Allow SF to modernize. A 60 story apartment building neutralize the cost of the property. Another option is to make SF a stronghold for the rich. Nothing wrong with that either. Push the poor out to locations they can afford. Few will die in either scenario.
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - virmundi 8y ago
    The OP literally made the argument that, in the extreme, people must have to die if regulations are relaxed. OP did not assume good faith. OP pushed the argument to the extreme. I responded by pointing out that out. I appreciate civility, but won’t assume good faith when the other participant has shown bad faith.
    - yesenadam 8y ago
      "Ah..I wondered when that would show up." was just being condescending and snarky. "But they started it!" is not a defence.
      - virmundi 8y ago
        Nope. I’ve just been here for a while. If you take the conversations on HN and put the them through a Bayesian Network, you can tell as soon as “deregulation” appears, the conversation will take a turn for “people will die” worse.
dsfyu404ed 8y ago
It's possible that innovations established in the the area that is absent of regulation may save lives, possibly more lives than would be saved by applying the preexisting regulation to that area.
chaostheory 8y ago
While there is some truth that some regulation is needed to account for living in the Ring of Fire and also for SuperFund sites created in the 20th century, NIMBYs tend to overly abuse environmental impact concerns in order to stop high density housing development and even business development; which has helped exacerbate the housing crisis.

jvagner 8y ago

I lived in a $3000/mo condo that was a 45 minute BART ride away. By myself. Without stock options. There are ways to live in the bay, but I'm looking forward to SF trying new ways to content with the street life problems there. Ultimately, it was definitely a discouraging element of life in the city.

diablerouge 8y ago

I think you're underestimating the real estate market. A significant reason new developments cost so much is that the land they are built upon costs so much. For example, in Portland Oregon, where I live, most new developments are being built on expensive real estate in central areas. As a result the apartments built there, even if they aren't particularly nice, end up going for high amounts. This is due to non-physical assets, like location and proximity to public transportation. Your solution would give free reign to developers to cut costs and still rent the housing out for exorbitant amounts because the housing market in SF is already so ridiculous. It would take a lot more than 1 square mile to significantly affect the market.

megaman8 8y ago
Then start new cities in open areas and create incentives (just in the beginning) for business to move jobs there. There's so much open space surrounding the bay area. In the east bay, From our clogged 6 lane highways, i can see nothing but green and yellow for miles as far as the eye can see.
jaredklewis 8y ago
I have friends in Tokyo renting 1 bedrooms in the city center for $500 ~ $900 month. Those buildings were not built as affordable housing. They became affordable housing when other developers built newer, nicer buildings somewhere else in Tokyo. Older buildings had to lower prices to keep tenants coming. Unless there is a literally infinite supply of rich people, I don’t see how increasing supply cannot create more affordable housing. Likewise, land values are so high because the completion over developable land is so fierce. As with buildings, increasing the supply of developable land will also lower prices.
- nradov 8y ago
  It's counter intuitive but sometimes adding supply actually increases demand. Of course at some point you do run out of rich people, but there are a lot of rich people now so that can take a long, long time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

canhascodez 8y ago

No, anarchy is not a solution to over-regulation. If it were, then we would not have regulations. Markets are not a solution for all problems: market failures are quite real, and no, they are not all caused by government.

twblalock 8y ago
> Markets are not a solution for all problems: market failures are quite real, and no, they are not all caused by government. This particular market failure is definitely caused by government.
- canhascodez 8y ago
  Homelessness never existed before government regulations?
  - dredmorbius 8y ago
    Not answering your question directly, but the homeless crisis in the US seems to have hit the radar in the early 1980s. Part of that may be changing terminology -- earlier use of "homeless" tends to focus on "people made homeless" (or "... left ...") after some calamity: structure fire, flood, hurricane, etc. In the 1980s "homeless" became a chronic condition. Other terms may have existed for the long-term unhoused. I'm not aware of them. What specifically changed, I'm not certain, though circumstances leading to the role of real estate as an asset rather than a utility may be part of that. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=homeless%2C%20homelessness&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Chomeless%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Chomelessness%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=homeless%2C%20...
  - twblalock 8y ago
    > Homelessness never existed before government regulations? The context of the parent comment is high real estate prices in San Francisco, which are caused by government regulations.

toasterlovin 8y ago

FWIW, people who have a problem with street people are largely not concerned with people living in unconventional shelters (such as tents and cardboard boxes). They're concerned with what street people do. Drug use, syringes left on the ground, shit and piss everywhere, piles of trash, theft, vandalism, etc.

mwfunk 8y ago
Agreed- a lot of people (on HN at least) are hypersensitive to any suggestion that any homeless people are voluntarily homeless, dangerous to themselves or others, or engage in any activities that everyone living around them would prefer they not engage in. I get it; acknowledging that can be a slippery slope towards demonizing all homeless people, which in turn could lead to people rationalizing not trying to help the situation, or dealing with it in ways that don't help those in need. But it's dishonest, and it's a weird sort of virtue signaling to try to shame anyone who says they don't like wading around in syringes and human waste and clearly mentally ill panhandlers when they visit SF. Mass homelessness is absolutely a problem not just for the homeless themselves, but for everyone in a city. There's nothing wrong with saying that mass homelessness makes a city a worse place for everyone, not just the homeless themselves. Accepting that makes it a lot easier to motivate people to actually do things to improve the situation. Anecdotally, it's an issue where people tend to hold extreme positions with no middle ground- either SF's homeless are primarily noble beings fallen on hard times who need our help, or (the other extreme view) they're primarily panhandlers taking advantage of local sympathies and weather and are fine with sleeping in doorways and pooping in alleys if it means they don't have to have jobs. In reality it's some combination, but I have no idea what the demographics are or if anyone even knows. If there's no common ground with how people define the problem, there's no agreement on the solution. It sucks but if people don't view it as a huge gray area with multiple valid perspectives, it can't ever get fixed in a meaningful way. People will just continue arguing over whether to arrest them all or throw money at them, and the problem will persist indefinitely. Having said that, I really hope the additional funding approved by voters last week turns out to be a step in the right direction that makes a tangible positive difference for everyone in SF, homeless or not. I have no problem with throwing money at the situation if it actually helps.
8y ago

nyghtly 8y ago

I agree that removing restrictive zoning requirements from suburban neighborhoods (which prevent the construction of apartments, for example), would go a long way to address the lack of housing, but it wouldn't fix everything. To assume so is to oversimplify the problem. You still need antipoverty programs and a social safety net. Not to mention that trying to change zoning laws in suburban neighborhoods is to fight a losing battle. "The researchers combed three years worth of meeting minutes from 97 cities and towns in the region, and found nearly two-thirds of residents who stood up to speak about proposed housing developments did so to oppose them, while just 14 percent spoke in support." [1] https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2018/08/30/researchers-examine-nimby-factor/uVws4Lrm6Sa2qa6UdyHIiO/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2018/08/30/researchers-...

badpun 8y ago

> Sure, maybe you don't like what happens in version 1. But, if we never iterate on this problem, we'll never make progress on it and in a 100 years we'll still be talking about this same self imposed problem which is completely solvable. I think the iteration already happened. The v1 was sometime at the XIX century and were currently and v1000 or something.

jmcqk6 8y ago

It is perfectly possible to have too many regulations, but that doesn't mean that the answer is no regulations. The simple fact is that we (human beings) have demonstrated quite well that when there are no rules, exploitative power structures form very quickly and do not self correct. Not to mention things like dealing with the problem of the commons. Regulations can be useful, since none of us are saints, they are required.