3 ms·

> 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

by 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?
kelnos 8y ago
This is the thing that always gets me. It has been hugely painful for hundreds of thousands of people living in the bay area, for 10-15+ years now. Sure, maybe in 20 years people will give up and prices will go down again. Maybe. But what a pyrrhic victory it will be for the long term landowners who got their way only through imposing hardship on others for 30+ years. But I guess they just don't care. "I got mine; fuck you" seems to be an attitude prevalent around here.

by Kalium 8y ago

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?

kelnos 8y ago

This is the thing that always gets me. It has been hugely painful for hundreds of thousands of people living in the bay area, for 10-15+ years now. Sure, maybe in 20 years people will give up and prices will go down again. Maybe. But what a pyrrhic victory it will be for the long term landowners who got their way only through imposing hardship on others for 30+ years. But I guess they just don't care. "I got mine; fuck you" seems to be an attitude prevalent around here.