3 ms·

By your own admission wouldn't the answer be more transportation infrastructure to support more dense housing? Nonetheless, I personally "agree" with your solu

By your own admission wouldn't the answer be more transportation infrastructure to support more dense housing? Nonetheless, I personally "agree" with your solution (in that I work in tech and don't live in SF), but hoping for the free market to do something that it is not doing has never been the solution to a question of public policy. Even if you took the most anti-tech public policy options possible in the city of SF, it wouldn't solve the fact that tech is firmly embedded in the entire metropolitan region which is outside of SF's municipal control. If you really wanted to get "tech bros" out of your city you would need a solution on the level of the California state government, ideally something that intentionally disincentivizes business and venture capital. Good luck on that, in the mean time you're just going to have more "tech bros" moving in and voting for anyone who speaks out in favor of upzoning.

Gibbon1 8y ago
> By your own admission wouldn't the answer be more transportation infrastructure to support more dense housing? Oh sure, SF needs a real subway and another BART tunnel between SOMA and Alameda. BART also has some choke points that need fixing at huge expense. But those projects take about 15-20 years. And currently the Republicans in congress are hostile to those projects. > If you really wanted to get "tech bros" out of your city I don't actually care about tech bro's really. I actually see tech workers in SF being victimized like everyone else. Lot of highly educated bright people paying through the nose to eke out a bare middle class lifestyle. Only because the money and jobs are here not some place more affordable that can more easily take the density increases.