5 ms·

There are people working for the City of SF who know economics, but that doesn't mean the people passing the laws do. I took an urban economics class taught by

There are people working for the City of SF who know economics, but that doesn't mean the people passing the laws do. I took an urban economics class taught by Ted Egan, the chief in-house economist for the City of SF, who knows pretty much everything about the subject and if he was put in charge of housing laws for the city I am certain housing quality and quantity would improve. However, he and people like him don't get to pass the laws. Instead, we have extremely vocal NIMBYs who lobby to get laws passed that benefit the rich minority of residents and harm everyone else.

brianwawok 7y ago
> benefit the rich minority of residents and harm everyone else But is that true? As a Midwesterner, I have no skin in the game. But is it ever OK for city to say "We like the size we are, we don't want drop zoning and turn our entire coastal town into 100 story mega-skyscrapers?" I don't think the end game of every city has to be to become Tokyo. As prices rise, more industry moves out of the city. Seems like a valid case for a local resident to want?
- ZainRiz 7y ago
  +1 to that (and I don't live in California either) It seems more like the proponents of cheap housing want to encourage lots of people to move into the city (which is how the existing supply becomes insufficient), at the expense of the people who were already living there. Though what I haven't been able to understand is why these groups are not in favor of creating housing further off where the land is cheaper? In the bay area why is "goodness" only measured in distance from downtown? This is a sincere question, I'd love to understand.
  - throwaway55554 7y ago
    > It seems more like the proponents of cheap housing want to encourage lots of people to move into the city... No. The person pouring coffee to the wealthy shouldn't have to drive 50 miles to work one way. Or live in an apartment with 7 roommates. That's not encouraging people to move there, that's taking care of the people already there.
    - brianwawok 7y ago
      In a free market, wages would raise until either you are paying the guy pouring coffee $30 an hour - or someone is willing to commute the required distance?
      - shuckles 7y ago
        In a free market, a developer could demolish a SFH to build a tall building with lots of micro units so that low income workers could live near where they work with relative dignity.
      - throwaway55554 7y ago
        Is the market really free anymore? Supply and demand is so out of whack now that there's so much money flooded into the world economy. The wealthy are buying up real estate and other assets left and right. The middle class and poor can never keep up. There's a vortex sucking money from the middle class straight to the wealthy and everyone seems to be OK with that.
- throwaway55554 7y ago
  Ok, but when they allowed high paying companies to set up shop, they had to know the people serving coffee would be pushed out of a place to live.
- baddox 7y ago
  > But is it ever OK for city to say ... It's important to be a bit more rigorous. What is "the city" in this thought experiment? The city government? The "will of the people" (what does that even mean, does it require a majority or a plurality to decide the size of the city)?
- danans 7y ago
  > But is it ever OK for city to say "We like the size we are Sure, and cities "say" what their preferences through their elected representatives, at the local and state level. > I don't think the end game of every city has to be to become Tokyo. Nobody said that has to be the endgame for every city. San Francisco's politicians and residents aren't debating the aspirations of your Midwestern city, they are debating the aspirations of their own city and region. If the balance of political power turns toward pro housing policies in San Francisco, maybe it becomes more Tokyo like. If not, maybe it moves in the other direction. But dynamic cities by their nature don't stay still, so you can be assured things will move in some direction.
- _ah 7y ago
  No, it's not ok. Cities are dynamic, and always changing. They are either growing or dying. A very few may have found temporary equilibrium. If a city wants to stay the same size, what they usually mean is that they wish to stay the same size at the same affordability level. However, since change is constant, their best attempt regulates growth. The natural result is economic stagnation (leading to eventual death), or city growth in spite of the regulation (leading to runaway prices). Every city has the right to choose HOW they will change. They do not have the right to insist that they WON'T change, or that such a thing is even possible.
- joejerryronnie 7y ago
  Whoa, whoa, whoa - are you saying that long time property owners should have a say in how their neighborhood and city develop? And that we shouldn’t blindly appease a bunch of people who have just moved to town chasing the almighty dollar and are pissed they can’t rent a luxury appt or purchase a home in one of the most expensive cities in America?!! You do realize you’re logged into HN, don’t you?
- shuckles 7y ago
  For starters, it's never OK for a city with pension plans like San Francisco to reject growth, since that growth was factored in when determining ability to pay those pensions. SF is able to tread water with its pensions while Oakland next door is not[1] almost entirely due to the tech industry. The above logic doesn't apply to pensions exclusively, either. Much infrastructure, in CA especially which has Prop 13, needs growth to sustain. Stasis is neither natural nor sustainable. [1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/philmatier/article/In-Oakland-money-intended-to-be-used-for-this-13827090.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/philmatier/article/In-Oa...
  - jsymolon 7y ago
    > Stasis is neither natural nor sustainable Neither is perpetual growth. Observation of nature shows that growth has bust cycles. aka, population grows till resources run out (food) and then the bulk starve and die.
    - shuckles 7y ago
      Humanity has been engaged in perpetual growth for millennia now. Heck, the universe has been growing since day zero!
deelowe 7y ago
> There are people working for the City of SF who know economics, but that doesn't mean the people passing the laws do > Instead, we have extremely vocal NIMBYs who lobby to get laws passed that benefit the rich minority of residents and harm everyone else. The politicians understand economics perfectly well, they just know who puts food on their table.
baddox 7y ago
> Instead, we have extremely vocal NIMBYs who lobby to get laws passed that benefit the rich minority of residents and harm everyone else. My point is that my basic economic understanding makes me expect this to be how the legislators behave regardless of what the legislators know about economics. They may not in fact have any understanding of economics, but I wouldn't expect this to affect their behavior either way.

brianwawok 7y ago

> benefit the rich minority of residents and harm everyone else But is that true? As a Midwesterner, I have no skin in the game. But is it ever OK for city to say "We like the size we are, we don't want drop zoning and turn our entire coastal town into 100 story mega-skyscrapers?" I don't think the end game of every city has to be to become Tokyo. As prices rise, more industry moves out of the city. Seems like a valid case for a local resident to want?

ZainRiz 7y ago
+1 to that (and I don't live in California either) It seems more like the proponents of cheap housing want to encourage lots of people to move into the city (which is how the existing supply becomes insufficient), at the expense of the people who were already living there. Though what I haven't been able to understand is why these groups are not in favor of creating housing further off where the land is cheaper? In the bay area why is "goodness" only measured in distance from downtown? This is a sincere question, I'd love to understand.
- throwaway55554 7y ago
  > It seems more like the proponents of cheap housing want to encourage lots of people to move into the city... No. The person pouring coffee to the wealthy shouldn't have to drive 50 miles to work one way. Or live in an apartment with 7 roommates. That's not encouraging people to move there, that's taking care of the people already there.
  - brianwawok 7y ago
    In a free market, wages would raise until either you are paying the guy pouring coffee $30 an hour - or someone is willing to commute the required distance?
    - shuckles 7y ago
      In a free market, a developer could demolish a SFH to build a tall building with lots of micro units so that low income workers could live near where they work with relative dignity.
    - throwaway55554 7y ago
      Is the market really free anymore? Supply and demand is so out of whack now that there's so much money flooded into the world economy. The wealthy are buying up real estate and other assets left and right. The middle class and poor can never keep up. There's a vortex sucking money from the middle class straight to the wealthy and everyone seems to be OK with that.
throwaway55554 7y ago
Ok, but when they allowed high paying companies to set up shop, they had to know the people serving coffee would be pushed out of a place to live.
baddox 7y ago
> But is it ever OK for city to say ... It's important to be a bit more rigorous. What is "the city" in this thought experiment? The city government? The "will of the people" (what does that even mean, does it require a majority or a plurality to decide the size of the city)?
danans 7y ago
> But is it ever OK for city to say "We like the size we are Sure, and cities "say" what their preferences through their elected representatives, at the local and state level. > I don't think the end game of every city has to be to become Tokyo. Nobody said that has to be the endgame for every city. San Francisco's politicians and residents aren't debating the aspirations of your Midwestern city, they are debating the aspirations of their own city and region. If the balance of political power turns toward pro housing policies in San Francisco, maybe it becomes more Tokyo like. If not, maybe it moves in the other direction. But dynamic cities by their nature don't stay still, so you can be assured things will move in some direction.
_ah 7y ago
No, it's not ok. Cities are dynamic, and always changing. They are either growing or dying. A very few may have found temporary equilibrium. If a city wants to stay the same size, what they usually mean is that they wish to stay the same size at the same affordability level. However, since change is constant, their best attempt regulates growth. The natural result is economic stagnation (leading to eventual death), or city growth in spite of the regulation (leading to runaway prices). Every city has the right to choose HOW they will change. They do not have the right to insist that they WON'T change, or that such a thing is even possible.
joejerryronnie 7y ago
Whoa, whoa, whoa - are you saying that long time property owners should have a say in how their neighborhood and city develop? And that we shouldn’t blindly appease a bunch of people who have just moved to town chasing the almighty dollar and are pissed they can’t rent a luxury appt or purchase a home in one of the most expensive cities in America?!! You do realize you’re logged into HN, don’t you?
shuckles 7y ago
For starters, it's never OK for a city with pension plans like San Francisco to reject growth, since that growth was factored in when determining ability to pay those pensions. SF is able to tread water with its pensions while Oakland next door is not[1] almost entirely due to the tech industry. The above logic doesn't apply to pensions exclusively, either. Much infrastructure, in CA especially which has Prop 13, needs growth to sustain. Stasis is neither natural nor sustainable. [1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/philmatier/article/In-Oakland-money-intended-to-be-used-for-this-13827090.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/philmatier/article/In-Oa...
- jsymolon 7y ago
  > Stasis is neither natural nor sustainable Neither is perpetual growth. Observation of nature shows that growth has bust cycles. aka, population grows till resources run out (food) and then the bulk starve and die.
  - shuckles 7y ago
    Humanity has been engaged in perpetual growth for millennia now. Heck, the universe has been growing since day zero!

deelowe 7y ago

> There are people working for the City of SF who know economics, but that doesn't mean the people passing the laws do > Instead, we have extremely vocal NIMBYs who lobby to get laws passed that benefit the rich minority of residents and harm everyone else. The politicians understand economics perfectly well, they just know who puts food on their table.

baddox 7y ago

> Instead, we have extremely vocal NIMBYs who lobby to get laws passed that benefit the rich minority of residents and harm everyone else. My point is that my basic economic understanding makes me expect this to be how the legislators behave regardless of what the legislators know about economics. They may not in fact have any understanding of economics, but I wouldn't expect this to affect their behavior either way.