4 ms·
Rant: I imagine that you, posting this story, or even some reading this thread, are doing so with the sentiment that "oh no, these unfortunate long time reside
by kepler1 8y ago
Rant:
I imagine that you, posting this story, or even some reading this thread, are doing so with the sentiment that "oh no, these unfortunate long time residents are being displaced", and that some cruel unfeeling capitalist society is allowing this travesty to happen. "How can we let big tech keep on doing this to our region??"
You, who are likely one of the many tech workers in the Bay Area, should be cheering every development project like this. You should be cheering when cities start to free up housing and make it available to people who want to move here, or are already here and can't find anything affordable. Even if those people buying the houses are making "big tech salaries", you should be for it.
Stop being blinded by the symbolic cases of the anti-gentrification sentiment, that the elderly widow is being forced out of her home to make way for ungrateful young tech workers. For every 1 of those stories, there are 50 families trying to make a new life in the area, unable to find a house for less than $1M or $6000/month in rent.
For every 1 of those stories, there are 10 families that have lived here for 40 years, and are sitting on empty houses, maybe even 2nd houses that are underutilized. They're the rich ones.
For every person occupying a rent controlled home, that's one unit of housing unavailable to someone else, and moreover, one additional unit of competition and higher prices imposed on everyone else who needs to find a place to live. Few among us will ever get to have the benefit of a rent controlled apartment.
Everyone reading here has some degree of numeracy and literacy better than average. Think about the numbers, not symbols -- and don't let yourself fall into the trap of thinking that the news is good at reporting the deeper story.
And think about what kind of system you want to incentivize when you vote or support knee-jerk policies. How does a region / city renew itself and make sure that it doesn't stagnate and turn into a place only for those people who got there first, screw everyone who comes afterwards? By ensuring that people with rent-controlled housing never have to leave? By tying up development for decades?
I take the side of the majority who no one feels comfortable speaking up for. The thousands of young people and families who want to live, work, and be productive here. Not those who already got theirs and want to keep the rest out. Time for them to move on, and if they need a nudge, it's well past due.
- Jyaif 8y agoI'm all for stoping the rent control, but I don't think anyone is happy they are going from 59 apartments to 55 townhouses. They should be increasing the density, not reducing it.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- xnyan 8y ago59 apartments are turning into 55 townhomes. Would you call this change, and if so, change in the direction of more or less housing availability? You will pardon me if your argument comes across as sophistry. Rent control is not an economically efficient process. If you want my support in ending it, first work with me to address housing.
- jogjayr 8y agoI'd cheer if the construction netted more units. I recognize that we need more housing. The plans described in the article are not doing that and are in fact, leaving us with fewer units. Calling these plans stupid has nothing to do with anti-gentrification sentiment - this is mathematically making the situation worse. > Not those who already got theirs and want to keep the rest out I agree. So maybe let's start by repealing Prop 13 so that everyone pays similar property taxes. Let's also start ending single-family zoning, minimum lot sizes, and minimum parking requirements. > For every person occupying a rent controlled home, that's one unit of housing unavailable to someone else For every person occupying a single family home bought 30 years ago, paying low property taxes locked in with Prop 13, that's 2-4 unites of housing unavailable to someone else.