5 ms·

> We don't need hem in Detroit or Stockton, we need them next to jobs. If more companies embraced remote workers or even just partial remote work, this problem

> We don't need hem in Detroit or Stockton, we need them next to jobs. If more companies embraced remote workers or even just partial remote work, this problem would be greatly alleviated.

epistasis 7y ago
On the other hand we could also let people live where they want, instead of letting a few people exclude others from living by them. People want to live in the Bay Area, it's wrong to exclude them.
- chaostheory 7y ago
  Look, even if by some miracle, building permits are easier to get and more lenient; there’s a reason for “excluding people” and it’s not gatekeeping surplus housing. Supply is just limited. It will always be too limited due to geography and other conditions. Ie the thing stopping people from living where they want is that there’s not enough places available to everyone. Regardless of the economic system used to distribute this finite resource (money, lotteries, etc...), no matter what the end result will be the same: not everyone will get housing. While there are a lot of nice things here, people mainly want to be here because of the jobs. If you help distribute the jobs via remoting, it will really help in reducing demand for very limited resources
  - epistasis 7y ago
    There's more than enough space, there's tons of space that we need to make more dense with infill housing. This isn't just a social issue, it's also a climate issue. Even if we assume extremely ambitious goals of 100% EVs and 75% of energy from renewables in 2050, we need to drastically reduce the amount of vehicle miles traveled in California, which means denser housing with mixed uses. Right now that sort of necessary housing and business is illegal in most of the peninsula. We need to change that. It really is just gate-keeping to keep others out. Distributing jobs is not a solution, because sprawl is not a solution. We must make better use of existing land, rather than consuming more farmland or nature.
    - chaostheory 7y ago
      I agree with improving inventory with dense housing. However, where I disagree is that it can meet availability for everyone who wants to live here both now AND in the future. Sure, we might be able to generate enough space in the near future assuming the NIMBYS start losing legal fights, but demand will almost always outstrip inventory unless your population and economy start shrinking. Remote work is still a good tool because it requires no extra upfront costs or slow to pass legislation; it can be done right now to offset demand of a scarce finite resource: living space. Moreover, it doesn't have to eat up new land. I would imagine it could help revitalize urban centers such as Detroit and other cities in the Rust Belt
      - epistasis 7y ago
        > but demand will almost always outstrip inventory unless your population and economy start shrinking. I don't know why this has to be the case. Can you expand upon the reasoning that makes you think this?
        chaostheory 7y ago
        Populations keep growing and they are attracted by the jobs centralized in specific locations. Unfortunately, physical space both horizontal and vertical are limited. This isn’t some new revelation and it isn’t limited to just the US, nor is it some new phenomenon; it’s well known history. It’s a very old problem. The only thing new is remote work as an option
        epistasis 7y ago
        But we are not limited by space in the Bay Area. Here's a couple different models of what building adequate housing would look like: https://medium.com/@firstcultural/how-california-can-build-3-5-million-new-homes-dfe2f0ba3466 https://medium.com/@firstcultural/how-california-can-build-3...
        chaostheory 7y ago
- pas 7y ago
  Sure, people want to live here, but why is it wrong to allow people some self-determination and allow them to decide who and how can build stuff, even if they are dumb and/or claim/want contradictory things?
  - epistasis 7y ago
    It's one thing to allow some of "self" determination, which would probably be a good thing if it was done. However, that's not what the current process is, it's most definitely note self determination. It's set up to allow a tiny number of people to say "no" to things. It doesn't poll the public to determine what to do. This one-sided input process has predictable results, with massive damage to the general interests of people who live in an area.
    - pas 7y ago
      Aren't there more people who are able to vote and rent in SF/LA/BayArea, than who have property there? To me it seems the problem is that the braindead NIMBYs successfully co-opted the locals with property, thanks to the property tax boogeyman.

> We don't need hem in Detroit or Stockton, we need them next to jobs. If more companies embraced remote workers or even just partial remote work, this problem would be greatly alleviated.

epistasis 7y ago

On the other hand we could also let people live where they want, instead of letting a few people exclude others from living by them. People want to live in the Bay Area, it's wrong to exclude them.

chaostheory 7y ago
Look, even if by some miracle, building permits are easier to get and more lenient; there’s a reason for “excluding people” and it’s not gatekeeping surplus housing. Supply is just limited. It will always be too limited due to geography and other conditions. Ie the thing stopping people from living where they want is that there’s not enough places available to everyone. Regardless of the economic system used to distribute this finite resource (money, lotteries, etc...), no matter what the end result will be the same: not everyone will get housing. While there are a lot of nice things here, people mainly want to be here because of the jobs. If you help distribute the jobs via remoting, it will really help in reducing demand for very limited resources
- epistasis 7y ago
  There's more than enough space, there's tons of space that we need to make more dense with infill housing. This isn't just a social issue, it's also a climate issue. Even if we assume extremely ambitious goals of 100% EVs and 75% of energy from renewables in 2050, we need to drastically reduce the amount of vehicle miles traveled in California, which means denser housing with mixed uses. Right now that sort of necessary housing and business is illegal in most of the peninsula. We need to change that. It really is just gate-keeping to keep others out. Distributing jobs is not a solution, because sprawl is not a solution. We must make better use of existing land, rather than consuming more farmland or nature.
  - chaostheory 7y ago
    I agree with improving inventory with dense housing. However, where I disagree is that it can meet availability for everyone who wants to live here both now AND in the future. Sure, we might be able to generate enough space in the near future assuming the NIMBYS start losing legal fights, but demand will almost always outstrip inventory unless your population and economy start shrinking. Remote work is still a good tool because it requires no extra upfront costs or slow to pass legislation; it can be done right now to offset demand of a scarce finite resource: living space. Moreover, it doesn't have to eat up new land. I would imagine it could help revitalize urban centers such as Detroit and other cities in the Rust Belt
    - epistasis 7y ago
      > but demand will almost always outstrip inventory unless your population and economy start shrinking. I don't know why this has to be the case. Can you expand upon the reasoning that makes you think this?
      - chaostheory 7y ago
        Populations keep growing and they are attracted by the jobs centralized in specific locations. Unfortunately, physical space both horizontal and vertical are limited. This isn’t some new revelation and it isn’t limited to just the US, nor is it some new phenomenon; it’s well known history. It’s a very old problem. The only thing new is remote work as an option
        epistasis 7y ago
        But we are not limited by space in the Bay Area. Here's a couple different models of what building adequate housing would look like: https://medium.com/@firstcultural/how-california-can-build-3-5-million-new-homes-dfe2f0ba3466 https://medium.com/@firstcultural/how-california-can-build-3...
        chaostheory 7y ago
pas 7y ago
Sure, people want to live here, but why is it wrong to allow people some self-determination and allow them to decide who and how can build stuff, even if they are dumb and/or claim/want contradictory things?
- epistasis 7y ago
  It's one thing to allow some of "self" determination, which would probably be a good thing if it was done. However, that's not what the current process is, it's most definitely note self determination. It's set up to allow a tiny number of people to say "no" to things. It doesn't poll the public to determine what to do. This one-sided input process has predictable results, with massive damage to the general interests of people who live in an area.
  - pas 7y ago
    Aren't there more people who are able to vote and rent in SF/LA/BayArea, than who have property there? To me it seems the problem is that the braindead NIMBYs successfully co-opted the locals with property, thanks to the property tax boogeyman.