5 ms·

Why is it important to accommodate people who might want to move to an area? Does everyone have the right to live anywhere they want to live without having to p

Why is it important to accommodate people who might want to move to an area? Does everyone have the right to live anywhere they want to live without having to pay the necessary price to be there? For example, does everyone have a right to expect a residence on a Hawaii beachfront? And if not, why is it reasonable to portray a city as somehow lacking because it serves existing constituents above new ones?

rcpt 8y ago
> Why is it important to accommodate people who might want to move to an area? Because walling off cities has awful consequences for national GDP https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/opinion/housing-regulations-us-economy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/opinion/housing-regulatio...
ModernMech 8y ago
Maybe not, but would you agree it's important to keep families together? If my children turn 18 and want to move out of the house but stay in the region to be close to family, they might not have many options when rent is $3000 per month and minimum wage is $7.
Solvitieg 8y ago
It's not just people moving to the area. Also consider existing renters who need to move, or people who become renting-age. I will need to move out of the city if I lose my place. I'm paying $1000 below market value.
- throwawaysea 8y ago
  [Apologies - copying a comment I made elsewhere, but it is relevant to the point you made] Here's a better alternative to rent control. Instead of rent control on a per-unit basis, cities could provide subsidies to long-term low-income residents that reduce their personal expenditure on rent. The subsidies would be paid for through taxes, thus amortizing the subsidy across the local tax base instead of impacting an individual landlord or unit. But let me note that this must be done only for long-term residents (that is, those who have been there for years). For example, if someone moved to SF within the last 5 years, they should have known what the price of living there is. This is one of the most desirable cities, and it makes sense that it would be expensive and that not everyone would get to live there. Those moving there in recent years therefore, simply made an irresponsible personal choice and must yield to the consequences, rather than being subsidized at others' expense.
ebog 8y ago
People should be able to move easily because it's good for all of us. The less friction there is in the labor market, the better off the economy is. It's also very good for the sellers of labor who now have better ability to move to where their services are most wanted or negotiate better rates. It's not super unreasonable for a city to try to protect its current residents but when an entire country of cities are all protecting their own residents that country is much worse off.
burlesona 8y ago
It’s exclusionary and merely the local version of nationalism. If you don’t want anyone to move to an area raise taxes and stop allowing new business etc. - ie, actually discourage new growth. But no place does that. They actively encourage new growth, just not new housing, which has the effect of systematically displacing lower income people, and eventually the middle class too. Long term it ends up hurting the original people it was supposed to benefit - ie. all the Californians crying about how their kids can’t stay in state when it’s the discriminatory policies they supported that created that situation.
- throwawaysea 8y ago
  I have to be honest, the linking of 'nationalism' to this discussion looks like hyperbole to me. Those who want to prevent housing growth or higher-density are not thinking "I don't want people of type X living here". They are most often thinking about what they personally want for themselves - the quality of life they want, the neighborhood character they desire, the breathing room/space they desire, the amount of traffic they want to deal with, and so on. > If you don’t want anyone to move to an area raise taxes and stop allowing new business etc. - ie, actually discourage new growth. Personal responsibility is still a thing. If someone can't afford to live in some area, or they don't like what they're getting out of it in terms of wages or expenses, they shouldn't move there. > They actively encourage new growth, just not new housing If people continue to move there, they are signaling they are OK with low wages or high expenses or any other drawbacks associated with that choice. If they are not OK with those things, they shouldn't move there.
  - kelnos 8y ago
    No, they are signaling that, in a world that does not have limitless options and alternatives, this one option is at least marginally better than other available options. It doesn't mean the option is good, or even sustainable, just that it's not the worst one. I, for one, would like to raise the bar a bit and give more people actually good options. Anyone who suggests that a "best option" that involves commuting 3 hours every day is actually a good option is not someone I want in charge of public policy.
  - 8y ago
mochomocha 8y ago
In San Francisco the return on land is so much higher than the return on work. There's no scenario under which this leads to a healthy society. NIMBY excesses created a modern feudalism. Why would the new hard-working generation subsidize the previous one and suffer taxes order of magnitude higher than the previous one (through property tax for example)? This is like a Ponzi scheme. There's nothing fair nor sustainable with this model. That's when in a properly working society you would have the State or Government take over and override the local policies to implement what's good for the greater good. Not what's good for the SF boomer wanting to sell his shack for 2M and retire in Florida. A couple of billionaires in Atherton should have no say on Caltrain improvements that could benefit millions of working people at the expense of a couple of trees in their backyards.
- ModernMech 8y ago
  I realized this when my landlord came home with a brand new Mercedes SL one day, and I was still taking the N to work despite having a 6 figure tech salary. I was basically subsidizing his car payment. I worked at a 6 person startup that received a few million in funding, and between our personal rents and the rent of our office, probably around 40% of that investor money went into the pockets of landlords. If our startup was somewhere cheaper, yeah we wouldn't have raised $X million, but we wouldn't have needed that much just to exist.
  - rootusrootus 8y ago
    Sounds like the solution is to become a landlord ;-)
    - asdff 8y ago
      Right after I get approved for my small loan of one million dollars to buy a 2br bungalow that will turn to dust the next earthquake.
  - 0x8BADF00D 8y ago
    Next time you see his car, take a bat and break his windows. Petty theft is decriminalized in Peak California.
dredmorbius 8y ago
Your, or more generally, the present population's children, are among those who will seek to establish new households. Whilst unlimited population growth is impossible, stagnant communities and regions tend to slide into decline. Those regions most amenable to and rewarding of new activity tend to grow. California occupied this position, globally, for much of the period from ~1930 - 2000, and particularly from ~1950-1975 or so. It does so far less now, with housing costs being a major factor.
skybrian 8y ago
It's like saying some cars are more responsible for a traffic jam than others, or some people on the subway contribute to it being crowded more than others. Everyone takes up space. The people who live somewhere contribute to the housing problem just like people who move in, in proportion to the amount of space they take up. Choosing a subclass of people to scapegoat doesn't solve a structural problem. It's also useful to think about who is doing things to make things better or worse. Moving in makes things worse, moving away makes things better. Building more housing helps, removing housing makes things worse. So far that seems to make sense, but here's the counterintuitive part: in any given year, choosing not to move away is as bad as moving in. You're taking up space someone else could use. (But normally we don't beat ourselves up too much for taking up space.)
bzbarsky 8y ago
> Why is it important to accommodate people who might want to move to an area? Just to be clear, "move to an area" includes "move out of their parents' house and live on their own". > because it serves existing constituents above new ones Because the "new ones" are the kids of the "existing ones", in many cases, if not most. As in, they are also existing constituents.
- throwawaysea 8y ago
  > Because the "new ones" are the kids of the "existing ones", in many cases, if not most. Do you have a source for this? Personally I don't buy it. But just for a second, let's assume that's the case. Would you be OK with limiting rent subsidies to just those who either have provably been residents for multiple years (let's say 5+ years) or have long-time roots (e.g. family)? I don't think any city owes expansion and housing supply and a re-architecture to accommodate just anyone who wants to move there.
  - bzbarsky 8y ago
    > Do you have a source for this? Non-anecdotal? Not at the moment, sorry. I'd have to go dig. But anecdotally, most of the people I hear complaining about rents (not in SV, various places on the East Coast) are complaining about it being impossible to stay near aging relatives. > Would you be OK with limiting rent subsidies to just those who either have provably been residents for multiple years (let's say 5+ years) or have long-time roots (e.g. family)? I personally? It really depends on the form the "rent subsidies" take and how they're financed. I do think that thinking of "build more housing if there's more demand" as a "rent subsidy" is a bit odd, if that's the sort of thing we're talking about here. > I don't think any city owes expansion and housing supply and a re-architecture to accommodate just anyone who wants to move there. Now we're talking about the moral and ethical dimension of things, right? Opinions on this differ widely; I personally do not have strong opinions that would apply in a blanket way, and would prefer to analyze specific cases (i.e. specific cities) on a case-by-case basis.
pavon 8y ago
If you are going to adopt a policy of stagnation in housing availability, you need to adopt a policy of stagnation across the board. You can't have incentives that encourage businesses to locate in your area and at the same time refuse to allow additional housing for the jobs that the business creates. You should prefer to send to universities out of state where they are more likely to find jobs out of state rather than expanding your local higher education options. You should help with relocation expenses for young people who don't get into college, since you don't have enough jobs for them locally. And you should hope that the current industries you have remain relevant, because it is hard to adapt and diversify without allowing growth.
landryraccoon 8y ago
Do you want your local school to be able to hire teachers, or your local restaurant to be able to get help? Housing costs make everything where you live more expensive. Lowering housing costs makes everything else cheaper for you too.
- throwawaysea 8y ago
  > Do you want your local school to be able to hire teachers, or your local restaurant to be able to get help? Yes, and they would still be available. If wages/living conditions are not good enough for them and they move away, there would be an under-supply of their labor which would cause their wages to rise, which would self-correct the problem. Right now, those same people are willing to work for less. This is a personal choice they are making. And I don't think it obligates lower residents to provide lower-cost housing or greater housing supply.
  - asdff 8y ago
    In CA there is an under supply of both teachers and wages. The market will not correct even if wages/living conditions are 1:1. There are already people living paycheck to paycheck, unable to generate a dime of savings. There are people who are priced out of cost of living despite holding a job, and they opt to be homeless in an RV or car. Here is a great article about this new class of homeless in CA: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/los-angeles-hidden-homeless-priced-out-cbsn-originals/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/los-angeles-hidden-homeless-pri...
bduerst 8y ago
>Why is it important to accommodate people who might want to move to an area? It's not just people moving into an area, it's moving within an area. Rent control creates an market where existing renters are inhibited from moving even into the building next to their current residence. It prevents free movement in/out and within the market. This also makes it so landlords want to evict/churn renters as much as possible, so they are incentivized to become slum lords. Landords invest as little as possible into the property because as soon as a renter moves in, that renter is never going to leave and the landlord sees diminishing returns over time.
- throwawaysea 8y ago
  OK here's a better alternative. Instead of rent control on a per-unit basis, cities could provide subsidies to long-term low-income residents that reduce their personal expenditure on rent. The subsidies would be paid for through taxes, thus amortizing the subsidy across the local tax base instead of impacting an individual landlord or unit. But let me note that this must be done only for long-term residents (that is, those who have been there for years). For example, if someone moved to SF within the last 5 years, they should have known what the price of living there is. This is one of the most desirable cities, and it makes sense that it would be expensive and that not everyone would get to live there. Those moving there in recent years therefore, simply made an irresponsible personal choice and must yield to the consequences, rather than being subsidized at others' expense.
  - bduerst 8y ago
    This already happens with income-subsidized housing. The added long-term requirement is absurd for the same reasons that locking people into long-term rentals is bad for rent control. You don't want to inhibit movement in the market.
pmart123 8y ago
The circumstance isn't exclusive to just people wanting to move to a new city. Rent control increases moving friction, which could be due to changing life events such as having kids, being an empty nester, or wanting to move to a more convenient neighborhood in the city.
Kalium 8y ago
> Why is it important to accommodate people who might want to move to an area? They're going to move there anyway. Making it more difficult and expensive won't stop them, as the example of SF shows. Accomodating them, then, is about mitigating the negative effects of immigration on residents and welcoming your new neighbors.
- throwawaysea 8y ago
  > They're going to move there anyway. I don't think this is going to be true in the longer-term, and clearly SF has an exodus underway (https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/Bay-Area-outward-migration-exodus-sf-redfin-12563337.php https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/Bay-A...). People will (are?) realize that the benefits of SF are not worth the tradeoffs (if their circumstances are such that they can't make it there), and move elsewhere. They might (should?) make their way to many of the inexpensive cities away from the coasts that are more affordable, and the new residents moving into those cities will help make them vibrant cities. At some point, the incumbent residents of SF or other communities may change their policies if what they desire is different. Or not. But I don't think there is any lack of housing supply or jobs in the middle of the US. What is lacking is the exact housing people want, at the exact price point people desire, at the exact locations they want to live in, in the line of work they want to be in. Demanding such an exceptional situation is highly unreasonable. Making tradeoffs/compromises is a part of life, and no one is entitled to have the best on every dimension by default - that has to be earned.
  - Kalium 8y ago
    > I don't think this is going to be true in the longer-term, and clearly SF has an exodus underway (https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/Bay-A... https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/Bay-A...) You're right! SF has an exodus underway among certain groups. It may be possible that this might be distinct from an overall exodus and resulting shrinking population, however. Is it possible that your perspective, while completely valid in every possible way, may not be as widely shared as you could hope for?
- 8y ago
kelnos 8y ago
Not everyone has a right to a specific house of arbitrary size in a specific location. Sure. But it's also a bit hypocritical to encourage and incentivize building tons of new office space, and then be surprised when the people who are to fill that office space would like to live within a reasonable commute distance of that office, and then deny them that opportunity, because "it will change the character of the neighborhood", or, "it will reduce my home value".

rcpt 8y ago

> Why is it important to accommodate people who might want to move to an area? Because walling off cities has awful consequences for national GDP https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/opinion/housing-regulations-us-economy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/opinion/housing-regulatio...

ModernMech 8y ago

Maybe not, but would you agree it's important to keep families together? If my children turn 18 and want to move out of the house but stay in the region to be close to family, they might not have many options when rent is $3000 per month and minimum wage is $7.

Solvitieg 8y ago

It's not just people moving to the area. Also consider existing renters who need to move, or people who become renting-age. I will need to move out of the city if I lose my place. I'm paying $1000 below market value.

throwawaysea 8y ago
[Apologies - copying a comment I made elsewhere, but it is relevant to the point you made] Here's a better alternative to rent control. Instead of rent control on a per-unit basis, cities could provide subsidies to long-term low-income residents that reduce their personal expenditure on rent. The subsidies would be paid for through taxes, thus amortizing the subsidy across the local tax base instead of impacting an individual landlord or unit. But let me note that this must be done only for long-term residents (that is, those who have been there for years). For example, if someone moved to SF within the last 5 years, they should have known what the price of living there is. This is one of the most desirable cities, and it makes sense that it would be expensive and that not everyone would get to live there. Those moving there in recent years therefore, simply made an irresponsible personal choice and must yield to the consequences, rather than being subsidized at others' expense.

ebog 8y ago

People should be able to move easily because it's good for all of us. The less friction there is in the labor market, the better off the economy is. It's also very good for the sellers of labor who now have better ability to move to where their services are most wanted or negotiate better rates. It's not super unreasonable for a city to try to protect its current residents but when an entire country of cities are all protecting their own residents that country is much worse off.

burlesona 8y ago

It’s exclusionary and merely the local version of nationalism. If you don’t want anyone to move to an area raise taxes and stop allowing new business etc. - ie, actually discourage new growth. But no place does that. They actively encourage new growth, just not new housing, which has the effect of systematically displacing lower income people, and eventually the middle class too. Long term it ends up hurting the original people it was supposed to benefit - ie. all the Californians crying about how their kids can’t stay in state when it’s the discriminatory policies they supported that created that situation.

throwawaysea 8y ago
I have to be honest, the linking of 'nationalism' to this discussion looks like hyperbole to me. Those who want to prevent housing growth or higher-density are not thinking "I don't want people of type X living here". They are most often thinking about what they personally want for themselves - the quality of life they want, the neighborhood character they desire, the breathing room/space they desire, the amount of traffic they want to deal with, and so on. > If you don’t want anyone to move to an area raise taxes and stop allowing new business etc. - ie, actually discourage new growth. Personal responsibility is still a thing. If someone can't afford to live in some area, or they don't like what they're getting out of it in terms of wages or expenses, they shouldn't move there. > They actively encourage new growth, just not new housing If people continue to move there, they are signaling they are OK with low wages or high expenses or any other drawbacks associated with that choice. If they are not OK with those things, they shouldn't move there.
- kelnos 8y ago
  No, they are signaling that, in a world that does not have limitless options and alternatives, this one option is at least marginally better than other available options. It doesn't mean the option is good, or even sustainable, just that it's not the worst one. I, for one, would like to raise the bar a bit and give more people actually good options. Anyone who suggests that a "best option" that involves commuting 3 hours every day is actually a good option is not someone I want in charge of public policy.
- 8y ago

mochomocha 8y ago

In San Francisco the return on land is so much higher than the return on work. There's no scenario under which this leads to a healthy society. NIMBY excesses created a modern feudalism. Why would the new hard-working generation subsidize the previous one and suffer taxes order of magnitude higher than the previous one (through property tax for example)? This is like a Ponzi scheme. There's nothing fair nor sustainable with this model. That's when in a properly working society you would have the State or Government take over and override the local policies to implement what's good for the greater good. Not what's good for the SF boomer wanting to sell his shack for 2M and retire in Florida. A couple of billionaires in Atherton should have no say on Caltrain improvements that could benefit millions of working people at the expense of a couple of trees in their backyards.

ModernMech 8y ago
I realized this when my landlord came home with a brand new Mercedes SL one day, and I was still taking the N to work despite having a 6 figure tech salary. I was basically subsidizing his car payment. I worked at a 6 person startup that received a few million in funding, and between our personal rents and the rent of our office, probably around 40% of that investor money went into the pockets of landlords. If our startup was somewhere cheaper, yeah we wouldn't have raised $X million, but we wouldn't have needed that much just to exist.
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  Sounds like the solution is to become a landlord ;-)
  - asdff 8y ago
    Right after I get approved for my small loan of one million dollars to buy a 2br bungalow that will turn to dust the next earthquake.
- 0x8BADF00D 8y ago
  Next time you see his car, take a bat and break his windows. Petty theft is decriminalized in Peak California.

dredmorbius 8y ago

Your, or more generally, the present population's children, are among those who will seek to establish new households. Whilst unlimited population growth is impossible, stagnant communities and regions tend to slide into decline. Those regions most amenable to and rewarding of new activity tend to grow. California occupied this position, globally, for much of the period from ~1930 - 2000, and particularly from ~1950-1975 or so. It does so far less now, with housing costs being a major factor.

skybrian 8y ago

It's like saying some cars are more responsible for a traffic jam than others, or some people on the subway contribute to it being crowded more than others. Everyone takes up space. The people who live somewhere contribute to the housing problem just like people who move in, in proportion to the amount of space they take up. Choosing a subclass of people to scapegoat doesn't solve a structural problem. It's also useful to think about who is doing things to make things better or worse. Moving in makes things worse, moving away makes things better. Building more housing helps, removing housing makes things worse. So far that seems to make sense, but here's the counterintuitive part: in any given year, choosing not to move away is as bad as moving in. You're taking up space someone else could use. (But normally we don't beat ourselves up too much for taking up space.)

bzbarsky 8y ago

> Why is it important to accommodate people who might want to move to an area? Just to be clear, "move to an area" includes "move out of their parents' house and live on their own". > because it serves existing constituents above new ones Because the "new ones" are the kids of the "existing ones", in many cases, if not most. As in, they are also existing constituents.

throwawaysea 8y ago
> Because the "new ones" are the kids of the "existing ones", in many cases, if not most. Do you have a source for this? Personally I don't buy it. But just for a second, let's assume that's the case. Would you be OK with limiting rent subsidies to just those who either have provably been residents for multiple years (let's say 5+ years) or have long-time roots (e.g. family)? I don't think any city owes expansion and housing supply and a re-architecture to accommodate just anyone who wants to move there.
- bzbarsky 8y ago
  > Do you have a source for this? Non-anecdotal? Not at the moment, sorry. I'd have to go dig. But anecdotally, most of the people I hear complaining about rents (not in SV, various places on the East Coast) are complaining about it being impossible to stay near aging relatives. > Would you be OK with limiting rent subsidies to just those who either have provably been residents for multiple years (let's say 5+ years) or have long-time roots (e.g. family)? I personally? It really depends on the form the "rent subsidies" take and how they're financed. I do think that thinking of "build more housing if there's more demand" as a "rent subsidy" is a bit odd, if that's the sort of thing we're talking about here. > I don't think any city owes expansion and housing supply and a re-architecture to accommodate just anyone who wants to move there. Now we're talking about the moral and ethical dimension of things, right? Opinions on this differ widely; I personally do not have strong opinions that would apply in a blanket way, and would prefer to analyze specific cases (i.e. specific cities) on a case-by-case basis.

pavon 8y ago

If you are going to adopt a policy of stagnation in housing availability, you need to adopt a policy of stagnation across the board. You can't have incentives that encourage businesses to locate in your area and at the same time refuse to allow additional housing for the jobs that the business creates. You should prefer to send to universities out of state where they are more likely to find jobs out of state rather than expanding your local higher education options. You should help with relocation expenses for young people who don't get into college, since you don't have enough jobs for them locally. And you should hope that the current industries you have remain relevant, because it is hard to adapt and diversify without allowing growth.

landryraccoon 8y ago

Do you want your local school to be able to hire teachers, or your local restaurant to be able to get help? Housing costs make everything where you live more expensive. Lowering housing costs makes everything else cheaper for you too.

throwawaysea 8y ago
> Do you want your local school to be able to hire teachers, or your local restaurant to be able to get help? Yes, and they would still be available. If wages/living conditions are not good enough for them and they move away, there would be an under-supply of their labor which would cause their wages to rise, which would self-correct the problem. Right now, those same people are willing to work for less. This is a personal choice they are making. And I don't think it obligates lower residents to provide lower-cost housing or greater housing supply.
- asdff 8y ago
  In CA there is an under supply of both teachers and wages. The market will not correct even if wages/living conditions are 1:1. There are already people living paycheck to paycheck, unable to generate a dime of savings. There are people who are priced out of cost of living despite holding a job, and they opt to be homeless in an RV or car. Here is a great article about this new class of homeless in CA: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/los-angeles-hidden-homeless-priced-out-cbsn-originals/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/los-angeles-hidden-homeless-pri...

bduerst 8y ago

>Why is it important to accommodate people who might want to move to an area? It's not just people moving into an area, it's moving within an area. Rent control creates an market where existing renters are inhibited from moving even into the building next to their current residence. It prevents free movement in/out and within the market. This also makes it so landlords want to evict/churn renters as much as possible, so they are incentivized to become slum lords. Landords invest as little as possible into the property because as soon as a renter moves in, that renter is never going to leave and the landlord sees diminishing returns over time.

throwawaysea 8y ago
OK here's a better alternative. Instead of rent control on a per-unit basis, cities could provide subsidies to long-term low-income residents that reduce their personal expenditure on rent. The subsidies would be paid for through taxes, thus amortizing the subsidy across the local tax base instead of impacting an individual landlord or unit. But let me note that this must be done only for long-term residents (that is, those who have been there for years). For example, if someone moved to SF within the last 5 years, they should have known what the price of living there is. This is one of the most desirable cities, and it makes sense that it would be expensive and that not everyone would get to live there. Those moving there in recent years therefore, simply made an irresponsible personal choice and must yield to the consequences, rather than being subsidized at others' expense.
- bduerst 8y ago
  This already happens with income-subsidized housing. The added long-term requirement is absurd for the same reasons that locking people into long-term rentals is bad for rent control. You don't want to inhibit movement in the market.

pmart123 8y ago

The circumstance isn't exclusive to just people wanting to move to a new city. Rent control increases moving friction, which could be due to changing life events such as having kids, being an empty nester, or wanting to move to a more convenient neighborhood in the city.

Kalium 8y ago

> Why is it important to accommodate people who might want to move to an area? They're going to move there anyway. Making it more difficult and expensive won't stop them, as the example of SF shows. Accomodating them, then, is about mitigating the negative effects of immigration on residents and welcoming your new neighbors.

throwawaysea 8y ago
> They're going to move there anyway. I don't think this is going to be true in the longer-term, and clearly SF has an exodus underway (https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/Bay-Area-outward-migration-exodus-sf-redfin-12563337.php https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/Bay-A...). People will (are?) realize that the benefits of SF are not worth the tradeoffs (if their circumstances are such that they can't make it there), and move elsewhere. They might (should?) make their way to many of the inexpensive cities away from the coasts that are more affordable, and the new residents moving into those cities will help make them vibrant cities. At some point, the incumbent residents of SF or other communities may change their policies if what they desire is different. Or not. But I don't think there is any lack of housing supply or jobs in the middle of the US. What is lacking is the exact housing people want, at the exact price point people desire, at the exact locations they want to live in, in the line of work they want to be in. Demanding such an exceptional situation is highly unreasonable. Making tradeoffs/compromises is a part of life, and no one is entitled to have the best on every dimension by default - that has to be earned.
- Kalium 8y ago
  > I don't think this is going to be true in the longer-term, and clearly SF has an exodus underway (https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/Bay-A... https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/Bay-A...) You're right! SF has an exodus underway among certain groups. It may be possible that this might be distinct from an overall exodus and resulting shrinking population, however. Is it possible that your perspective, while completely valid in every possible way, may not be as widely shared as you could hope for?
8y ago

kelnos 8y ago

Not everyone has a right to a specific house of arbitrary size in a specific location. Sure. But it's also a bit hypocritical to encourage and incentivize building tons of new office space, and then be surprised when the people who are to fill that office space would like to live within a reasonable commute distance of that office, and then deny them that opportunity, because "it will change the character of the neighborhood", or, "it will reduce my home value".