5 ms·

Blaming the tech industry is both not fair and not correct. In the grand scheme of themes they are a tiny fraction of total employment.

mistrial9 7y ago
except you are wrong -- I personally know a CA-17 commuter and there are many, many others, for decades... long ago, it started in Scotts Valley and then moving further South.
- pengaru 7y ago
  You don't even need to personally know CA-17 commuters, just try drive CA-17 during commute hours. Over last 10-15 years it's become very congested. And this doesn't even capture the many tech folks who have the luxury of working either 100% remote or commute to the office once a week.
- epistasis 7y ago
  The numbers I have heard are 30,000 going from Santa Cruz north for work, daily, and 20,000 coming in to Santa Cruz for work, daily. Working in tech and living in Santa Cruz is not new, a good chunk of the Gen X and Boomer crowd in Santa Cruz did that or does that. I don't think its nearly as much of a problem as Santa Cruz refusing to allow any sort of density. The complaints I hear about tiny changes, like a hotel replacing two stories with three stories, are the real cause of Santa Cruz's woes. SC has tried to be exclusionary for the past four decades, which means landowners get rich and there's no room for anybody who isn't rich. Tech has little to do with this. San Luis Obispo is going through the same stuff, and they can't blame Silicon Valley for that at all. The problem is not new people, the problem is refusing to share.
BonnieBrown 7y ago
Yah you are entirely wrong. I lived in Santa Cruz for 4 years while going to school. If you dont think the residual wealth from just over the hill raises housing prices and drives out lower cost-of-living housing the same way that it happened in SF proper you are willingly deluding yourself of the truth. In my 4 years at Santa Cruz I was not aware of one low-rent housing development being built. There was one developed on West Cliff near the boardwalk but it was like 3.5k for a 2 bedroom apartment and that was the only one I was aware of.
- nostrebored 7y ago
  That's because that's not how low rent housing happens. Low rent housing is the high rent housing of yesteryear. Trying to preserve San Francisco and Santa Cruz as a quaint tourist towns is to blame for their housing strife.
- nerfhammer 7y ago
  low income housing doesn't get built because it's banned almost everywhere https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21754205 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21754205
- smsm42 7y ago
  > In my 4 years at Santa Cruz I was not aware of one low-rent housing development being built. So, there's a huge demand for housing for rent. But no housing is getting built. Does Santa Cruz have a Tokyo-level population density and there's literally nowhere to put more housing? Doesn't look like it last time I was there. Do hitech companies somehow use their nefarious influence to prevent housing from being built because they know how their workers enjoy long commutes in heavy traffic? Doesn't sound likely to me. So why there's no housing being built? Somehow I don't think it's Netflix's fault...
  - Danieru 7y ago
    FYI, Tokyo has tons of room to put more housing. Just knock over the old un-attractive houses and build something builder. Anyone complaining how no new low market housing has been built is wishing for a short cut. California has strangled their housing supply for so long there is unmet demand at every market level. To somehow expect development to sneak through at the low end is silly. Houses and apartments start new then get older. Older things are less valuable and thus naturally low end housing is best met by old less desired housing. Wishing to see new development first happen at the low end before saturating the high end is like wishing car makers built brand new cars for the used car market.
    - zamfi 7y ago
      > Wishing to see new development first happen at the low end before saturating the high end Development is basically not happening at any end, low-, high-, or middle-! This is also not the fault of Netflix, et al.

mistrial9 7y ago

except you are wrong -- I personally know a CA-17 commuter and there are many, many others, for decades... long ago, it started in Scotts Valley and then moving further South.

pengaru 7y ago
You don't even need to personally know CA-17 commuters, just try drive CA-17 during commute hours. Over last 10-15 years it's become very congested. And this doesn't even capture the many tech folks who have the luxury of working either 100% remote or commute to the office once a week.
epistasis 7y ago
The numbers I have heard are 30,000 going from Santa Cruz north for work, daily, and 20,000 coming in to Santa Cruz for work, daily. Working in tech and living in Santa Cruz is not new, a good chunk of the Gen X and Boomer crowd in Santa Cruz did that or does that. I don't think its nearly as much of a problem as Santa Cruz refusing to allow any sort of density. The complaints I hear about tiny changes, like a hotel replacing two stories with three stories, are the real cause of Santa Cruz's woes. SC has tried to be exclusionary for the past four decades, which means landowners get rich and there's no room for anybody who isn't rich. Tech has little to do with this. San Luis Obispo is going through the same stuff, and they can't blame Silicon Valley for that at all. The problem is not new people, the problem is refusing to share.

BonnieBrown 7y ago

Yah you are entirely wrong. I lived in Santa Cruz for 4 years while going to school. If you dont think the residual wealth from just over the hill raises housing prices and drives out lower cost-of-living housing the same way that it happened in SF proper you are willingly deluding yourself of the truth. In my 4 years at Santa Cruz I was not aware of one low-rent housing development being built. There was one developed on West Cliff near the boardwalk but it was like 3.5k for a 2 bedroom apartment and that was the only one I was aware of.

nostrebored 7y ago
That's because that's not how low rent housing happens. Low rent housing is the high rent housing of yesteryear. Trying to preserve San Francisco and Santa Cruz as a quaint tourist towns is to blame for their housing strife.
nerfhammer 7y ago
low income housing doesn't get built because it's banned almost everywhere https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21754205 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21754205
smsm42 7y ago
> In my 4 years at Santa Cruz I was not aware of one low-rent housing development being built. So, there's a huge demand for housing for rent. But no housing is getting built. Does Santa Cruz have a Tokyo-level population density and there's literally nowhere to put more housing? Doesn't look like it last time I was there. Do hitech companies somehow use their nefarious influence to prevent housing from being built because they know how their workers enjoy long commutes in heavy traffic? Doesn't sound likely to me. So why there's no housing being built? Somehow I don't think it's Netflix's fault...
- Danieru 7y ago
  FYI, Tokyo has tons of room to put more housing. Just knock over the old un-attractive houses and build something builder. Anyone complaining how no new low market housing has been built is wishing for a short cut. California has strangled their housing supply for so long there is unmet demand at every market level. To somehow expect development to sneak through at the low end is silly. Houses and apartments start new then get older. Older things are less valuable and thus naturally low end housing is best met by old less desired housing. Wishing to see new development first happen at the low end before saturating the high end is like wishing car makers built brand new cars for the used car market.
  - zamfi 7y ago
    > Wishing to see new development first happen at the low end before saturating the high end Development is basically not happening at any end, low-, high-, or middle-! This is also not the fault of Netflix, et al.