4 ms·

Yes, I'm personally very worried about this as someone who is heavily invested in the real estate market here. The issue of how to deal with the rapid growth in

Yes, I'm personally very worried about this as someone who is heavily invested in the real estate market here. The issue of how to deal with the rapid growth in the city is multifaceted and it's difficult to pitch a stance on. At the very least, you could easily make an argument that a rising tide does not lift all boats; i.e. many people are personally not benefiting much from the tech-boom in the area. On the other hand, if your stance is that our collective goal should be to produce the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people; then we want more people to move to the city have prosperous lives to fulfill the new roles available here. In that scenario it's hard to keep income inequality from expanding. It seems like thusfar the city council has done a good job at striking a balance; MHA (mandatory housing affordability) is a level-headed way to redistribute some of the gains that tech has brought to those who are less fortunate. However, our current city council is much more left-leaning and I'm worried that their stance towards growth is far more "progressive" and anti-business. Should people really be entitled to live in an expensive city that they cannot afford? Cities like Manhattan or SF have sort of taken a stance on that and it favors the prosperous. I'm not sure how I feel about the matter; but I certainly do not want us to dampen our potential future potential by encouraging businesses to set up shop elsewhere. We need more initiatives like MHA and fewer like the business head-tax.

admax88q 6y ago
> It seems like thusfar the city council has done a good job at striking a balance; I'm not from the area, but the sheer amount of anger and enthusiasm that has fueled these protests suggests that the city council has not been striking an appropriate balance. Happy middle class people don't tend to riot and try to start new societies.
- nikkwong 6y ago
  Ah sorry, I meant the previous city council, who had been doing a good job it seemed like at balancing the city's growth with the social problems that were becoming more evident at the time.
deathgrips 6y ago
>Should people really be entitled to live in an expensive city that they cannot afford? Cities like Manhattan or SF have sort of taken a stance on that and it favors the prosperous. I find it eerie that you're excluding from the equation the tens of thousands of homeless people in those cities. The right question is "to what lengths should we go to give people the ability to live with a roof over their heads?" The bay area has answered with "very little", where most people are barely offering human empathy to the homeless.
- nikkwong 6y ago
  Homelessness is a complex problem which I believe namely stems from psychological and substance abuse disorders. I think there is likely a relationship between the amount of income inequality in a society and the amount of homelessness. I do believe that we should support the homeless populations of our cities; but if you're familiar with Seattle's homelessness problems in particular, you'll know that the city has essentially thrown literally hundreds of millions of dollars at the problem to little effect. I don't believe Seattle should follow a path of growth-at-all-costs and ignore the social problems the city has; but the city council here is staunchly anti-business, and that carries a risk-too, like the original commenter said—take growth for granted and you can end up like Detroit. In that situation, no one prospers, and everyone suffers; which we definitely don't want. It's a fine line to walk. That's all I'm saying.
  - deathgrips 6y ago
    >Homelessness is a complex problem which I believe namely stems from psychological and substance abuse disorders I think this is about as useful as saying "homelessness is caused by loitering". We're confusing cause and effect. Try living on the streets for a few years where people treat you worse than shit without developing some mental illness or abusing drugs to deal with the stress and loneliness. If you think that the cause is mental illness and drugs and throwing money at it mostly does nothing, why do you think San Francisco has by a long shot the highest rate of homelessness in America?
    - 6y ago
tathougies 6y ago
> many people are personally not benefiting much from the tech-boom in the area Gosh how can you be so jealous of people you're willing to destroy their stuff. It's the same kind of xenophobia that fuels anti-immigrant rhetoric. People upset that those moving to 'their turf' happen to do better than them.
- nikkwong 6y ago
  Yeah, I don't know. The left needs to hold a mirror to themselves and realize that they are more and more becoming just a mirror-image of the right. The idea to "just let it all burn" is just so Trumpian. What the left hates about Trump's tendency to trample all over our international relationships and treaties—they're now advocating for in terms of destroying private property. It's an amazing double standard; and it's the very attitude that will get Trump reelected this November. A shame to watch.
  - tathougies 6y ago
    The scary thing is that this protest is foreshadowed by the WTO protests also orchestrated by 'left-leaning' groups, and now we have a president -- Trump -- who is very much against the WTO, except he's bad now because they've moved beyond that. The other interesting comparison here is the varied response to this and the Malheur National wildlife refuge occupation.
    - nikkwong 6y ago
      I couldn't agree more; I think part of the appeal of the right is somewhat dogmatic in that most of the sticking points are very fundamental and the messaging is very straightforward; guns, religion, family, low taxes. What does the left stand for? Being a progressive is a moving target, and the inter-messaging is very mixed and often contradictory. Ex. for a long time liberalism was about free speech but now we want to regulate speech with safe-spaces and trigger warnings. Part of this probably evolves from the fact that Liberals are introspective and willing to challenge their beliefs to their own disadvantage in a way that the GOP never has been; but it's genuinely confusing and the party does not feel unified.
Kye 6y ago
>> "Should people really be entitled to live in an expensive city that they cannot afford?" They do if you want the people who serve your $5 coffees and $20 meals to be able to live within a reasonable distance. I like to think the people gentrifying them out don't want to push them out, but I'm not sure most of them even realize they're responsible for the huge homeless population. They moved in for the well-paid jobs and pushed the people who lived there out. The pushed out don't always have somewhere to go or a way to get there.

admax88q 6y ago

> It seems like thusfar the city council has done a good job at striking a balance; I'm not from the area, but the sheer amount of anger and enthusiasm that has fueled these protests suggests that the city council has not been striking an appropriate balance. Happy middle class people don't tend to riot and try to start new societies.

nikkwong 6y ago
Ah sorry, I meant the previous city council, who had been doing a good job it seemed like at balancing the city's growth with the social problems that were becoming more evident at the time.

deathgrips 6y ago

>Should people really be entitled to live in an expensive city that they cannot afford? Cities like Manhattan or SF have sort of taken a stance on that and it favors the prosperous. I find it eerie that you're excluding from the equation the tens of thousands of homeless people in those cities. The right question is "to what lengths should we go to give people the ability to live with a roof over their heads?" The bay area has answered with "very little", where most people are barely offering human empathy to the homeless.

nikkwong 6y ago
Homelessness is a complex problem which I believe namely stems from psychological and substance abuse disorders. I think there is likely a relationship between the amount of income inequality in a society and the amount of homelessness. I do believe that we should support the homeless populations of our cities; but if you're familiar with Seattle's homelessness problems in particular, you'll know that the city has essentially thrown literally hundreds of millions of dollars at the problem to little effect. I don't believe Seattle should follow a path of growth-at-all-costs and ignore the social problems the city has; but the city council here is staunchly anti-business, and that carries a risk-too, like the original commenter said—take growth for granted and you can end up like Detroit. In that situation, no one prospers, and everyone suffers; which we definitely don't want. It's a fine line to walk. That's all I'm saying.
- deathgrips 6y ago
  >Homelessness is a complex problem which I believe namely stems from psychological and substance abuse disorders I think this is about as useful as saying "homelessness is caused by loitering". We're confusing cause and effect. Try living on the streets for a few years where people treat you worse than shit without developing some mental illness or abusing drugs to deal with the stress and loneliness. If you think that the cause is mental illness and drugs and throwing money at it mostly does nothing, why do you think San Francisco has by a long shot the highest rate of homelessness in America?
  - 6y ago

tathougies 6y ago

> many people are personally not benefiting much from the tech-boom in the area Gosh how can you be so jealous of people you're willing to destroy their stuff. It's the same kind of xenophobia that fuels anti-immigrant rhetoric. People upset that those moving to 'their turf' happen to do better than them.

nikkwong 6y ago
Yeah, I don't know. The left needs to hold a mirror to themselves and realize that they are more and more becoming just a mirror-image of the right. The idea to "just let it all burn" is just so Trumpian. What the left hates about Trump's tendency to trample all over our international relationships and treaties—they're now advocating for in terms of destroying private property. It's an amazing double standard; and it's the very attitude that will get Trump reelected this November. A shame to watch.
- tathougies 6y ago
  The scary thing is that this protest is foreshadowed by the WTO protests also orchestrated by 'left-leaning' groups, and now we have a president -- Trump -- who is very much against the WTO, except he's bad now because they've moved beyond that. The other interesting comparison here is the varied response to this and the Malheur National wildlife refuge occupation.
  - nikkwong 6y ago
    I couldn't agree more; I think part of the appeal of the right is somewhat dogmatic in that most of the sticking points are very fundamental and the messaging is very straightforward; guns, religion, family, low taxes. What does the left stand for? Being a progressive is a moving target, and the inter-messaging is very mixed and often contradictory. Ex. for a long time liberalism was about free speech but now we want to regulate speech with safe-spaces and trigger warnings. Part of this probably evolves from the fact that Liberals are introspective and willing to challenge their beliefs to their own disadvantage in a way that the GOP never has been; but it's genuinely confusing and the party does not feel unified.

Kye 6y ago

>> "Should people really be entitled to live in an expensive city that they cannot afford?" They do if you want the people who serve your $5 coffees and $20 meals to be able to live within a reasonable distance. I like to think the people gentrifying them out don't want to push them out, but I'm not sure most of them even realize they're responsible for the huge homeless population. They moved in for the well-paid jobs and pushed the people who lived there out. The pushed out don't always have somewhere to go or a way to get there.