5 ms·

There is no housing crisis. On average, America has very affordable housing. The only 'crisis' is that there are a lot of people that want to life in SF. But

by jariel 6y ago

There is no housing crisis. On average, America has very affordable housing. The only 'crisis' is that there are a lot of people that want to life in SF. But that's not really a 'crisis'. If the residents of an area do not want to turn their city into Hong Kong or Vancouver with 100's of high rises stacked back to back, it's absolutely reasonable for them to do that. Unlike Hong Kong, California is massive and there's plenty of space. There's vast land available for fairly dense development around Morgan Hill, Santa Rosa, Sacramento - and that's where people can go if they want to live nearby. If the jobs in SF don't pay enough for people to live there, then definitely demand more pay, don't take the jobs or leave. The area is nice, but not that nice. Companies should use the opportunity to spread out a little bit.

diebeforei485 6y ago
> If the residents of an area do not want [...], it's absolutely reasonable for them to do that. This is actually illegal under California law, but is rarely enforced because it requires someone (eg. the state government) to actually sue exclusionary communities in state court to get an enforcement action against them to allow more housing to be built. Because the state government hasn't been doing this, some organizations have been stepping up - https://www.yimbylaw.org https://www.yimbylaw.org
- astrange 6y ago
  The state has actually just started an office to sue cities over HAA inspired by YIMBY Law and CARLA.
almost_usual 6y ago
Inevitably when the big one hits those single family homes will be gone. Also imagine the URMs in SOMA, Chinatown, and Tenderloin to be leveled. At that point the city will need to rebuild for a large homeless population rapidly. High density earthquake resistant architecture will be the natural transition.
- kelnos 6y ago
  > Inevitably when the big one hits [...] earthquake resistant architecture will be the natural transition. You'd think, but after the 1906 earthquake, building codes were actually relaxed because it was taking too long to rebuild the city after it was destroyed, and residents and city government were getting impatient. Would history repeat itself if/when this happens again? Probably?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
astrange 6y ago
> There is no housing crisis. The people claiming it’s fine or the problem is just “too many vacant units” are going to have to try to explain to the state why their RHNA number should be zero and they’re going to fail. > If the residents of an area do not want to turn their city into Hong Kong or Vancouver with 100's of high rises stacked back to back, it's absolutely reasonable for them to do that. Have you seen Paris? Mostly 6-story buildings. Meanwhile SF is mostly single family houses worth over a million dollars each. That’s not the natural order of things! You can do better. Sprawl and empty land development is not doing better, it means less wildlife, more emissions and more risk of fires.
- jariel 6y ago
  "That’s not the natural order of things!" It's exceedingly arrogant to tell residents of community what the 'natural order of things' should be in their community. The 'natural order of things' in SF is whatever the residents want it to be.
  - astrange 6y ago
    Yes, I’m sure they love being able to make younger people pay them millions for a house they bought for $10 in 1950. Good thing state and federal law are available to stop them from being extortionists. Also note, the people who need to buy these houses aren’t immigrants, they’re the homeowners’ children. The population of California is decreasing because the younger natives are leaving. Similarly, homeless people here are mostly natives, not shipped in for the good weather.
    - jariel 6y ago
      ??? They're 'extortionists' for wanting to live in their own homes? Nobody 'needs' to live in SF, and nobody has a right to live there either.
      - astrange 6y ago
        Upzoning doesn't stop you from living in your home, but it does allow you the personal choice of turning it into an apartment, and it denies people the right (which they apparently think they have) of having the same views of the beach and some parking lots they've had since 1950.
imtringued 6y ago
>If the jobs in SF don't pay enough for people to live there, then definitely demand more pay, don't take the jobs or leave. The area is nice, but not that nice. Oh man, how can you be so naive to not know. 50 houses + 51 residents means prices rise until of them leaves. There is no amount of money you can pay to solve this if you don't build enough housing.
- jariel 6y ago
  ??? There cannot be more people in SF today than SF can already house. So there cannot be '51' already for '50' homes (by your 1:1 analogy). If Google wants more workers, they can open up more offices elsewhere, even somewhat nearby. Like Morgan Hill.
  - 8note 6y ago
    You fit the extra person in the living room of one of the spaces, and put up drapes as a pretend wall. If you get a 52nd, you put them in the garage.

by jariel 6y ago

diebeforei485 6y ago

> If the residents of an area do not want [...], it's absolutely reasonable for them to do that. This is actually illegal under California law, but is rarely enforced because it requires someone (eg. the state government) to actually sue exclusionary communities in state court to get an enforcement action against them to allow more housing to be built. Because the state government hasn't been doing this, some organizations have been stepping up - https://www.yimbylaw.org https://www.yimbylaw.org

astrange 6y ago
The state has actually just started an office to sue cities over HAA inspired by YIMBY Law and CARLA.

almost_usual 6y ago

Inevitably when the big one hits those single family homes will be gone. Also imagine the URMs in SOMA, Chinatown, and Tenderloin to be leveled. At that point the city will need to rebuild for a large homeless population rapidly. High density earthquake resistant architecture will be the natural transition.

kelnos 6y ago
> Inevitably when the big one hits [...] earthquake resistant architecture will be the natural transition. You'd think, but after the 1906 earthquake, building codes were actually relaxed because it was taking too long to rebuild the city after it was destroyed, and residents and city government were getting impatient. Would history repeat itself if/when this happens again? Probably?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

astrange 6y ago

> There is no housing crisis. The people claiming it’s fine or the problem is just “too many vacant units” are going to have to try to explain to the state why their RHNA number should be zero and they’re going to fail. > If the residents of an area do not want to turn their city into Hong Kong or Vancouver with 100's of high rises stacked back to back, it's absolutely reasonable for them to do that. Have you seen Paris? Mostly 6-story buildings. Meanwhile SF is mostly single family houses worth over a million dollars each. That’s not the natural order of things! You can do better. Sprawl and empty land development is not doing better, it means less wildlife, more emissions and more risk of fires.

jariel 6y ago
"That’s not the natural order of things!" It's exceedingly arrogant to tell residents of community what the 'natural order of things' should be in their community. The 'natural order of things' in SF is whatever the residents want it to be.
- astrange 6y ago
  Yes, I’m sure they love being able to make younger people pay them millions for a house they bought for $10 in 1950. Good thing state and federal law are available to stop them from being extortionists. Also note, the people who need to buy these houses aren’t immigrants, they’re the homeowners’ children. The population of California is decreasing because the younger natives are leaving. Similarly, homeless people here are mostly natives, not shipped in for the good weather.
  - jariel 6y ago
    ??? They're 'extortionists' for wanting to live in their own homes? Nobody 'needs' to live in SF, and nobody has a right to live there either.
    - astrange 6y ago
      Upzoning doesn't stop you from living in your home, but it does allow you the personal choice of turning it into an apartment, and it denies people the right (which they apparently think they have) of having the same views of the beach and some parking lots they've had since 1950.

imtringued 6y ago

>If the jobs in SF don't pay enough for people to live there, then definitely demand more pay, don't take the jobs or leave. The area is nice, but not that nice. Oh man, how can you be so naive to not know. 50 houses + 51 residents means prices rise until of them leaves. There is no amount of money you can pay to solve this if you don't build enough housing.

jariel 6y ago
??? There cannot be more people in SF today than SF can already house. So there cannot be '51' already for '50' homes (by your 1:1 analogy). If Google wants more workers, they can open up more offices elsewhere, even somewhat nearby. Like Morgan Hill.
- 8note 6y ago
  You fit the extra person in the living room of one of the spaces, and put up drapes as a pretend wall. If you get a 52nd, you put them in the garage.