3 ms·

"Really the solution is not more housing in SF but to move tech bro jobs elsewhere more affordable. Like Detroit." Funny that you call a realistic, economicall

"Really the solution is not more housing in SF but to move tech bro jobs elsewhere more affordable. Like Detroit." Funny that you call a realistic, economically sound criticism of NIMBY-ism "propaganda" but then go on to attack the entire problem as "techbros". Wow, talk about intellectual dishonesty. I'm so glad we all learned today that the only problem with SF is "techbros!" That's certainly not "propaganda"! All we have to do fix SF is kick all the techbros out! How convenient for your preferred ideology!

Gibbon1 8y ago
Go ahead please do argue against my points about building costs and transportation infrastructure. I'm waiting.
- chris_mc 8y ago
  Imagine if housing was affordable somewhere other than Stockton. Then maybe people would live in SF and the South Bay (aka: "Silicon Valley") rather than huddling together on the BART and Caltrain. If we had housing closer to our work and commercial areas, people could walk more, too. Instead, folks travel for 1-2 hours each way because they can only afford to live far into the East Bay. I don't know for sure if this would work, but it seems logical that people want to live closer to work, if possible.
  - Gibbon1 8y ago
    That's why SF has been forcing developers to build multi-family in the core and not Noe Valley Nob Hill, the Sunset, etc. Doesn't fix that cities in the South Bay are allowing developers to tear down single/two story office/commercial and replace it with 4-6 story office buildings and yet they won't rezone for multi-family.
- criley2 8y ago
  I argued against your ad hominem fallacies quite sufficiently, thank you. Seeing as I found your substantive claims to be backed by no data, evidence or anything other than low-level ad hominem attacks (propaganda, tech bros, etc) I found no reason to engage with such radicalism on the merits. Try speaking like an intelligent person who doesn't fill their "claims" with nasty personal attacks, and you might find the replies to you do the same.

Gibbon1 8y ago

Go ahead please do argue against my points about building costs and transportation infrastructure. I'm waiting.

chris_mc 8y ago
Imagine if housing was affordable somewhere other than Stockton. Then maybe people would live in SF and the South Bay (aka: "Silicon Valley") rather than huddling together on the BART and Caltrain. If we had housing closer to our work and commercial areas, people could walk more, too. Instead, folks travel for 1-2 hours each way because they can only afford to live far into the East Bay. I don't know for sure if this would work, but it seems logical that people want to live closer to work, if possible.
- Gibbon1 8y ago
  That's why SF has been forcing developers to build multi-family in the core and not Noe Valley Nob Hill, the Sunset, etc. Doesn't fix that cities in the South Bay are allowing developers to tear down single/two story office/commercial and replace it with 4-6 story office buildings and yet they won't rezone for multi-family.
criley2 8y ago
I argued against your ad hominem fallacies quite sufficiently, thank you. Seeing as I found your substantive claims to be backed by no data, evidence or anything other than low-level ad hominem attacks (propaganda, tech bros, etc) I found no reason to engage with such radicalism on the merits. Try speaking like an intelligent person who doesn't fill their "claims" with nasty personal attacks, and you might find the replies to you do the same.