3 ms·

I think there has been a very successful diversion of derision towards ‘Americans who own homes’ and ignoring the vast majority of foreigners who own properties

I think there has been a very successful diversion of derision towards ‘Americans who own homes’ and ignoring the vast majority of foreigners who own properties(both rent seeking and farmland) in the Bay Area as speculative/investment properties that they have purchased sight unseen. Deriding pensioners on fixed income whose taxes actually built the infrastructure and schools and roads of the Bay Area is shameful..Whose final home is not ‘speculative property’, but their retirement nest egg. Not everyone has a pension from a public sector job. Look into pension funds, foreign investors,insurance companies, university investment funds ..and yes, Wall Street..who are literally raiding California from the other side of our state to see how this inequality and unaffordablility is caused. And the Govt in the state of California seated in Sacramento is complicit in this. On a broader scale, they are also stealing our water(example: family farms in Paso Robles can’t grow their crops like alfafa and corn because of a water moratorium because Harvard investment funds have bought acres and acres to grow grapes in vineyards..and drilling wells at the fence line which makes it legal but essentially taps into aquifers and water tables meant for the entire region. 1500 ft when water was found at 300 ft.) This is causing a divide between rural and urban causing the former to become unliveable and increasing population pressures on highly dense urban hubs.

throwaway34241 7y ago
What is the cause/effect here? You seem to be laying the blame at foreigners, wall street, etc for causing the housing shortage, but the cause/effect of voters/local governments prohibiting building housing -> housing shortage is pretty straightforward, I don't see why pointing it out should be "shameful". I don't think homeowners are a unified block on this issue, but specifically the local organizations that put a lot of effort into preventing housing during a serious shortage seem to reasonably deserve some criticism. In the bay area even small proposals (like allowing 1 story of apartments over shops, or some mid-density near transit) often get killed by groups that uniformly oppose all housing.
- jelliclesfarm 7y ago
  Is it a housing shortage or an excess of population in urban centers? What are you going to do living like sardines in a can where high density housing has been approved if there is a high cost to scarce water/power/infrastructure and support services.
  - ch4s3 7y ago
    Infrastructure is far cheaper to provide per person at high densities. You need less of it, and things like electricity have less loss over shorter distances.
  - throwaway34241 7y ago
    The population hasn't increased tremendously, it's the price that has gone up. So it doesn't seem like excess population is probably the problem. You could lay the blame at demand for housing in cities (instead of supply). It seems less possible to make housing affordable by reducing demand though. I don't think it's wrong to dislike cities and to want to live in the suburbs or countryside. But people will need to commute longer and longer and pay more and more to landlords unless more housing is built. I think what makes sense is for the cities to expand to accommodate the demand, then be surrounded by suburbs. If the people who want to live in cities can live there, that should make the suburbs more affordable. And there is no way to have an affordable suburb right in the city anyway.

throwaway34241 7y ago

What is the cause/effect here? You seem to be laying the blame at foreigners, wall street, etc for causing the housing shortage, but the cause/effect of voters/local governments prohibiting building housing -> housing shortage is pretty straightforward, I don't see why pointing it out should be "shameful". I don't think homeowners are a unified block on this issue, but specifically the local organizations that put a lot of effort into preventing housing during a serious shortage seem to reasonably deserve some criticism. In the bay area even small proposals (like allowing 1 story of apartments over shops, or some mid-density near transit) often get killed by groups that uniformly oppose all housing.

jelliclesfarm 7y ago
Is it a housing shortage or an excess of population in urban centers? What are you going to do living like sardines in a can where high density housing has been approved if there is a high cost to scarce water/power/infrastructure and support services.
- ch4s3 7y ago
  Infrastructure is far cheaper to provide per person at high densities. You need less of it, and things like electricity have less loss over shorter distances.
- throwaway34241 7y ago
  The population hasn't increased tremendously, it's the price that has gone up. So it doesn't seem like excess population is probably the problem. You could lay the blame at demand for housing in cities (instead of supply). It seems less possible to make housing affordable by reducing demand though. I don't think it's wrong to dislike cities and to want to live in the suburbs or countryside. But people will need to commute longer and longer and pay more and more to landlords unless more housing is built. I think what makes sense is for the cities to expand to accommodate the demand, then be surrounded by suburbs. If the people who want to live in cities can live there, that should make the suburbs more affordable. And there is no way to have an affordable suburb right in the city anyway.