3 ms·

Yes but do we have to build houses for them in one of the most physically constrained places (partly geographic, partly zoning) on Earth? There seems to be thi

Yes but do we have to build houses for them in one of the most physically constrained places (partly geographic, partly zoning) on Earth? There seems to be this strange idea that people put forth that your options are simply between living in the most expensive city in the country or being homeless in the most expensive city in the country. How about Modesto? I think you would find plenty of support from people who genuinely would like for those people to have somewhere to live. The problem is that the opposition wouldn't accept it. It would come off as some perverse form of gentrification, under the implication that anybody "deserves" to live anywhere. I personally have always found the argument that "I should be able to continue living here, because I lived here previously" to be incredibly uncompelling. What about people who weren't born in fantastic cities? The fact that the Tenderloin is where it is, in what would probably be some of the best real estate in the city, is absolutely insane. I think you would find that there is all the good will in the world from people, if the proposed solutions make sense. They just don't.

TaylorAlexander 6y ago
Modesto is not San Francisco. I believe it is reasonable for someone to want to live in San Francisco even if they do not earn many tens of thousands of dollars a year minimum. While there are many units grandfathered in or rent controlled in SF, it seems all new tenants are selected based on wealth. Why should SF be a city exclusive to the wealthy? The city of Vienna Austria has a fantastic social housing program. The city owns and manages 220,000 units of housing and indirectly controls another 200,000 units of private properties developed under a city-regulated process [1]. This could be done in SF. And then even people who are not very wealthy could potentially move to and live in the city. I reject the notion that individual wealth should be the sole or primary way that we allot housing to people. Instead of complaining about tents, we could (through our taxes) build these people homes. Instead of stepping over people sleeping on the ground we could make sure every person has a roof over their head. San Francisco is a very wealthy city. We could certainly afford to build this kind of housing. [1] https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_article_011314.html https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_articl...

TaylorAlexander 6y ago

Modesto is not San Francisco. I believe it is reasonable for someone to want to live in San Francisco even if they do not earn many tens of thousands of dollars a year minimum. While there are many units grandfathered in or rent controlled in SF, it seems all new tenants are selected based on wealth. Why should SF be a city exclusive to the wealthy? The city of Vienna Austria has a fantastic social housing program. The city owns and manages 220,000 units of housing and indirectly controls another 200,000 units of private properties developed under a city-regulated process [1]. This could be done in SF. And then even people who are not very wealthy could potentially move to and live in the city. I reject the notion that individual wealth should be the sole or primary way that we allot housing to people. Instead of complaining about tents, we could (through our taxes) build these people homes. Instead of stepping over people sleeping on the ground we could make sure every person has a roof over their head. San Francisco is a very wealthy city. We could certainly afford to build this kind of housing. [1] https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_article_011314.html https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_articl...