4 ms·

> I live in the foothills of the Santa Cruz mountains...If all of Silicon Valley were depopulated I think my neighborhood would still be a perfectly fine place

> I live in the foothills of the Santa Cruz mountains...If all of Silicon Valley were depopulated I think my neighborhood would still be a perfectly fine place to live. Humboldt Country is a beautiful and high poverty part of the state with poor municipal services. I have no reason to believe the Santa Cruz wouldn't be the same without expensive urban infrastructure, not to mention the money we do and need to continue spending to minimize the risk of fire to your property.

lisper 6y ago
> I have no reason to believe the Santa Cruz wouldn't be the same without expensive urban infrastructure Like I said, my neighborhood began as a vacation destination for rich San Franciscans in the late 1800s. It has been affluent for over 100 years, long before Silicon Valley was a thing, in fact, before electricity was a thing. There are rich urban areas and there are poor urban areas, and there are rich rural areas and there are poor rural areas. There is absolutely no correlation in general between housing density and quality of life. There is, however, a strong and obvious correlation between per-capita wealth and quality of life. But housing inflation does absolutely nothing to promote that.
- shuckles 6y ago
  You can't both say "I would be happy if home prices in my neighborhood went down" and "I am confident that my area will always be one where rich people want to visit." The former will only happen if the types of amenities which make rich people want to visit go away, at which point you likely will want to go away as well.
  - lisper 6y ago
    > The former will only happen if the types of amenities which make rich people want to visit go away No, the former will happen when fewer people, for whatever reason, want to buy real estate here. This was a nice place to live even (perhaps especially) back when the main industry in the surrounding area was orange farming.
    - shuckles 6y ago
      The people who found it a nice place to live when it was undeveloped thought it was so nice that they decided to build a university with a huge endowment nearby which then decided to attract funding from the Department of Defense which then... You’re trying to express your preferences for lower home values with an all else equal argument which is not very meaningful in a dynamic system. The realistic alternatives where fewer people want to settle in the Bay Area all involve hypotheticals where it is simply a less attractive place to live in ways that likely impact you as well.
      - lisper 6y ago
        Yes, they did all those things. They also set aside large parcels of open space, so that only half the surrounding area became a suburban hellhole. In between the wilderness and Hoboken NJ there is a broad range of possibilities. Somewhere in between those two extremes is a nice middle-ground where things are not too sparse and not too crowded. The San Francisco peninsula has been close to that happy medium for a long time, so I'm pretty sure it could stand to lose a few people and still stay in the desirable range. Yes, density has all kinds of societal benefits. The problem is, not everyone wants to live that way.

lisper 6y ago

> I have no reason to believe the Santa Cruz wouldn't be the same without expensive urban infrastructure Like I said, my neighborhood began as a vacation destination for rich San Franciscans in the late 1800s. It has been affluent for over 100 years, long before Silicon Valley was a thing, in fact, before electricity was a thing. There are rich urban areas and there are poor urban areas, and there are rich rural areas and there are poor rural areas. There is absolutely no correlation in general between housing density and quality of life. There is, however, a strong and obvious correlation between per-capita wealth and quality of life. But housing inflation does absolutely nothing to promote that.

shuckles 6y ago
You can't both say "I would be happy if home prices in my neighborhood went down" and "I am confident that my area will always be one where rich people want to visit." The former will only happen if the types of amenities which make rich people want to visit go away, at which point you likely will want to go away as well.
- lisper 6y ago
  > The former will only happen if the types of amenities which make rich people want to visit go away No, the former will happen when fewer people, for whatever reason, want to buy real estate here. This was a nice place to live even (perhaps especially) back when the main industry in the surrounding area was orange farming.
  - shuckles 6y ago
    The people who found it a nice place to live when it was undeveloped thought it was so nice that they decided to build a university with a huge endowment nearby which then decided to attract funding from the Department of Defense which then... You’re trying to express your preferences for lower home values with an all else equal argument which is not very meaningful in a dynamic system. The realistic alternatives where fewer people want to settle in the Bay Area all involve hypotheticals where it is simply a less attractive place to live in ways that likely impact you as well.
    - lisper 6y ago
      Yes, they did all those things. They also set aside large parcels of open space, so that only half the surrounding area became a suburban hellhole. In between the wilderness and Hoboken NJ there is a broad range of possibilities. Somewhere in between those two extremes is a nice middle-ground where things are not too sparse and not too crowded. The San Francisco peninsula has been close to that happy medium for a long time, so I'm pretty sure it could stand to lose a few people and still stay in the desirable range. Yes, density has all kinds of societal benefits. The problem is, not everyone wants to live that way.