3 ms·

I think the onus is on you to disprove them, not just to merely question their veracity. Anyone who has built a house in any urbanized area with an highly envi

by Aloha 8y ago

I think the onus is on you to disprove them, not just to merely question their veracity. Anyone who has built a house in any urbanized area with an highly environmental conscious outlook can tell you that building a house is difficult - I think anyone can also tell you that San Francisco has a large amount of demand - I think there would also be universal agreement that San Francisco is also basically built out. Upmarket housing tends to get built first when market demand is high, and its expensive to build in a place, because its harder to recoup the costs on cheaper housing. Without significant densification (which has proven untenable politically) no significant amount of new housing will be built - so you can pass all the affordable housing bonds in the world, but until you change the zoning (regulatory) construct - nothing will change.

msbarnett 8y ago
> I think the onus is on you to disprove them, not just to merely question their veracity. This generally is not how reasoned debate occurs. The onus is on the person making an assertion to provide facts supporting it, not on everyone else to disprove an unsourced claim.
- throwaway400 8y ago
  As if it's possible that some other scenario is not at play. Do you think housing is being erected at a record pace and yet still can't keep up with demand? Is it possible that people just don't want to build in SF, because... reasons that aren't red tap?
  - msbarnett 8y ago
    I haven't made any argument one way or the other. I will point out that there is an article on the front page of HN right now in which multiple economists argue that "it's supply and demand" provides an insufficient explanation for, and solution to, the problem of affordable housing in San Francisco: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19872015 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19872015 So arguing that we must accept the "it's just supply and demand" argument by acclamation with no sourcing seems flimsy. Educated minds are arguing otherwise, and providing evidence to back up their claims. It hardly seems unreasonable to expect the other side of the argument to do similar.
Wowfunhappy 8y ago
I think you're asking the GP to prove a negative?

by Aloha 8y ago

msbarnett 8y ago

> I think the onus is on you to disprove them, not just to merely question their veracity. This generally is not how reasoned debate occurs. The onus is on the person making an assertion to provide facts supporting it, not on everyone else to disprove an unsourced claim.

throwaway400 8y ago
As if it's possible that some other scenario is not at play. Do you think housing is being erected at a record pace and yet still can't keep up with demand? Is it possible that people just don't want to build in SF, because... reasons that aren't red tap?
- msbarnett 8y ago
  I haven't made any argument one way or the other. I will point out that there is an article on the front page of HN right now in which multiple economists argue that "it's supply and demand" provides an insufficient explanation for, and solution to, the problem of affordable housing in San Francisco: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19872015 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19872015 So arguing that we must accept the "it's just supply and demand" argument by acclamation with no sourcing seems flimsy. Educated minds are arguing otherwise, and providing evidence to back up their claims. It hardly seems unreasonable to expect the other side of the argument to do similar.

Wowfunhappy 8y ago

I think you're asking the GP to prove a negative?