4 ms·

So while housing supply versus demand is what people focus on, the social problem here (people feel like you can only live in SF if you work in tech, and high-p

So while housing supply versus demand is what people focus on, the social problem here (people feel like you can only live in SF if you work in tech, and high-paying tech at that) is coming from a weird sort of income inequality. Can you demonstrate that? San Francisco is more distinct from other municipalities for its poor housing policy, than for the presence and density of highly paid professionals. The rest of your comment flows from this idea, that the presence of certain kind of people and what they make for a living is something under the control of policy makers. This seems like a strange idea in a country with unrestricted freedom of movement and a basically free market economy. It is striking that you are willing to operate with the idea that policy makers could have that kind of power, while not approaching the problem from areas where they so clearly do have power: public transit and housing policy.

saalweachter 8y ago
While I'm generally interested in problem-solving, in this case I'm interested in problem-understanding. Yes, the housing policies are notoriously stupid, but there are parameters underwhich they are inconsequential. What are they? And while San Francisco has put its own delightful spin on it, gentrification is by no means unique to the Bay Area. Neighborhoods shift over time inevitably but sometimes these shifts are sudden and many former and soon to be former residents feel pushed out and left out. What are the parameters for a neighborhood population to turn over without anyone noticing or caring?
- solidsnack9000 8y ago
  Yes, the housing policies are notoriously stupid, but there are parameters under which they are inconsequential. What are they? If there had been no change in demand it all, San Francisco housing policies would not have been a problem. That was not a robust assumption given internal freedom of movement within the United States. And while San Francisco has put its own delightful spin on it, gentrification is by no means unique to the Bay Area. Neighborhoods shift over time inevitably but sometimes these shifts are sudden and many former and soon to be former residents feel pushed out and left out. What are the parameters for a neighborhood population to turn over without anyone noticing or caring? Maybe it depends somewhat on the nature of the new residents. If they are moving for a new job, new building can blunt the impact. People will take the new housing that is within a credible commute distance of work. If, however, the new residents are deliberately seeking to enter and bid up historic or trendy areas, some kind of defense is necessary as well. In Berlin's case, there was legislation to prevent too much improvement of apartments -- putting in new kitchens and so forth -- in certain areas, to prevent the rent from rising. San Francisco has new residents of both types; and suffers from many other forces. It is small and on a peninsula, so there is only one dimension for growth (Berlin, DC and similar areas can grow square-wise). Its housing policies prevent new building. Public transit is not that great; getting to work from the western half of the city takes almost as long as coming from Oakland. Thousands upon thousands of people moved here to take jobs in the area. Many of them targeted small neighborhoods like The Mission and Noe Valley and Potrero Hill. The latter behavior is particularly remarkable in SF because these neighborhoods were typically far from their jobs. Company shuttles undoubtedly contributed to this problem. It was like public transit operating in reverse: centralizing the residences and dispersing the commercial centers.

saalweachter 8y ago

While I'm generally interested in problem-solving, in this case I'm interested in problem-understanding. Yes, the housing policies are notoriously stupid, but there are parameters underwhich they are inconsequential. What are they? And while San Francisco has put its own delightful spin on it, gentrification is by no means unique to the Bay Area. Neighborhoods shift over time inevitably but sometimes these shifts are sudden and many former and soon to be former residents feel pushed out and left out. What are the parameters for a neighborhood population to turn over without anyone noticing or caring?

solidsnack9000 8y ago
Yes, the housing policies are notoriously stupid, but there are parameters under which they are inconsequential. What are they? If there had been no change in demand it all, San Francisco housing policies would not have been a problem. That was not a robust assumption given internal freedom of movement within the United States. And while San Francisco has put its own delightful spin on it, gentrification is by no means unique to the Bay Area. Neighborhoods shift over time inevitably but sometimes these shifts are sudden and many former and soon to be former residents feel pushed out and left out. What are the parameters for a neighborhood population to turn over without anyone noticing or caring? Maybe it depends somewhat on the nature of the new residents. If they are moving for a new job, new building can blunt the impact. People will take the new housing that is within a credible commute distance of work. If, however, the new residents are deliberately seeking to enter and bid up historic or trendy areas, some kind of defense is necessary as well. In Berlin's case, there was legislation to prevent too much improvement of apartments -- putting in new kitchens and so forth -- in certain areas, to prevent the rent from rising. San Francisco has new residents of both types; and suffers from many other forces. It is small and on a peninsula, so there is only one dimension for growth (Berlin, DC and similar areas can grow square-wise). Its housing policies prevent new building. Public transit is not that great; getting to work from the western half of the city takes almost as long as coming from Oakland. Thousands upon thousands of people moved here to take jobs in the area. Many of them targeted small neighborhoods like The Mission and Noe Valley and Potrero Hill. The latter behavior is particularly remarkable in SF because these neighborhoods were typically far from their jobs. Company shuttles undoubtedly contributed to this problem. It was like public transit operating in reverse: centralizing the residences and dispersing the commercial centers.