8 ms·

Why is this always framed as a problem caused by people looking for a place to live? I moved to SF for a job. I'm not the one who decided to not build enough n

by tqi 6y ago

Why is this always framed as a problem caused by people looking for a place to live? I moved to SF for a job. I'm not the one who decided to not build enough new housing for 30 years. I'm not the one who decided to approve all those new office buildings. Yet I was the problem for renting an overpriced apartment from an SF native who bought in the 90s, and now pays less than $8K/yr in taxes on a place worth over $1M. And now I'm still the problem if I decide to leave?

Guest42 6y ago
I find it pretty ironic that in Idaho they would oppose a scenario that is aligned to “free market” principles and that Oregon would oppose immigration. I once took a job in Portland and had stuff thrown at my car because of the CA license plate along with screaming “go back to your own state.” Opinions change very quickly once they involve people personally.
- rayiner 6y ago
  “When California sends people north to Oregon, they’re not sending their best and brightest. They’re drug dealers and smugglers. Some, I assume, are good people.” — my sixth generation Oregonian wife.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
zippergz 6y ago
I've lived in several US cities over the course of my life, and the only constant is that whoever you talk to, the problems are caused by the people who moved there after them.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  I’d say that another constant is the belief that living in a place for a certain period of time confers a sense of ownership over a city, along with the right to decide who should and should not live there. You obviously see that in states where Californians are moving, but you even see that in California against those who moved there recently for a job. Frankly I find it completely bizarre.
  - gwright 6y ago
    Without taking an opinion on whether that "sense of ownership" is right or wrong, I would say that the response to gentrification is another example of the phenomena you are describing.
  - zippergz 6y ago
    I know this is kind of the opposite of the (mostly joking) point I made that you replied to. But the thing I find bizarre is that people can't understand why other people oppose change in the place they live in. Most people choose places to live because they like those places. I think it's safe to say that the things they like extend beyond the four walls of the residence they buy or rent. They might like the walkability, or the views, or the diversity of the neighborhood, or the proximity to friends and family. All of these are things that are subject to change over time, and are more likely to change as the demographics of the town do. The shops you liked to walk to get priced out and replaced with Starbucks and Lululemon. The views get blocked by new buildings. The diversity goes away as people are priced out. The friends and family move because rent went up too much. How can you possibly be surprised that people don't want the things they like about the place they live to change? This doesn't mean they "own" the city, but it does mean it's quite understandable for them to try to do things to prevent the change if they can. I'm not arguing that this is good, or even completely rational in all cases, but it's far from surprising.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      > How can you possibly be surprised that people don't want the things they like about the place they live to change? People can and should obviously get upset (or excited!) about specific changes. What I'm more surprised at is the idea that some people have that any change at all is unacceptable. It's not like the town that one loved sprung up into existence as is, it took change to get the parts that you like in the first place! No one has an affirmative right for their town to remain as-is from their favorite point in time, as that's just not how life works. I'm specifically thinking of my time in Santa Monica, with the residents thinking that they should be able to keep their small town vibe despite living close to one of the largest metropolitan areas in the United States. It struck me as neigh upon delusional to think that one can live near a major city and demand that the city halt expansion wherever it might be convenient to you. That's just not how humanity has ever worked, ever. Cities expand, live too close to them at your own peril.
- tqi 6y ago
  The two most populous states in the US are California and Texas. One demonizes immigrants for moving in and destroying the local culture / way of life. The other, of course, is home to The Alamo.
  - JKCalhoun 6y ago
    Lived in California for decades now. I have no idea what you are on about.
    - tqi 6y ago
      It's a joke about how both hate people coming in from out of state
  - nostrademons 6y ago
    Still ambiguous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alamo,_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alamo,_California
- kamaal 6y ago
  Standard with any kind of human movement. Once they are in, people want the door shut right behind them.
davidw 6y ago
I don't think the article frames it that way, really, if you look at the conclusion. I'd also highly recommend his book for an introduction to land use politics, centered around the bay area: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/585765/golden-gates-by-conor-dougherty/ https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/585765/golden-gates...
- tqi 6y ago
  I can see that, but the headline[1] and much of the first half of the article[2] strongly imply it (imo). [1] The Californians Are Coming. So Is Their Housing Crisis [2] Example: According to a recent study by Redfin, the national real estate brokerage, the budget for out-of-town home buyers moving to Boise is 50 percent higher than locals’ — $738,000 versus $494,000. In Nashville, out-of-towners also have a budget that is 50 percent higher than locals. In Austin it’s 32 percent, Denver 26 percent and Phoenix 23 percent.
jayd16 6y ago
Why is it everyone else's problem to accommodate you? >I'm not the one who decided to not build enough new housing for 30 years. California's population has increased 4x since 1950 vs 2x for the country as a whole, more so in SF. To say there is no new housing is just ignoring the (finally waning) population boom.
- tqi 6y ago
  It's not everyone else's problem. No one owes me new housing. But it's also not my fucking fault that housing prices are going up.
  - jayd16 6y ago
    Indeed, its a byproduct of rapid growth. For whatever reason people seem to need to find a specific population to demonize.
- nine_k 6y ago
  The OP pays a market-rate rent and local taxes for the accommodation. What "everybody else" is doing?
  - jayd16 6y ago
    The tone suggests OP is entitled to more and that housing policy should change to benefit them over other residents. Its a common sentiment I see on HN that seems to suggest California should continue to bend to support new residents. I have no problem with the people that move to California but the back pressure is bound to happen and native Californians seem despised for it.
    - tqi 6y ago
      Again, I don't mean to imply that anyone owes me anything. But as I said, I'm not the one who decided how much housing to build. And I'm not the one who decided how much rent to charge. Both of those decisions were made by "native" Californians (whatever that means). So all I'm objecting to is the notion that I (and other "transplants") the ones solely responsible for this mess.
Lammy 6y ago
> Why is this always framed as a problem caused by people looking for a place to live? It would have been hard to win friends or votes if anti-housing people 50 years ago disclosed what segment of "people looking for a place to live" bothered them so much. It's no coincidence that this all starts around the 1968–1974 period: https://belonging.berkeley.edu/racial-segregation-san-francisco-bay-area-part-2 https://belonging.berkeley.edu/racial-segregation-san-franci...
floatingatoll 6y ago
The NIMBY problem suggests that it's not so much your fault at all - the locals would have passed zoning laws preventing housing for you from being built, as they did in SF ("protect our views" and such) - but actually the fault of the locals for resisting density upgrades. Imagine, in SimCity terms, if your Low-Density High-Wealth Residential citizens passed a ballot measure preventing you from building Medium-Density Residential zones, and you have the essential problem of SF and other regions in a nutshell. People don't like density upgrades, and they fight against them tooth and nail. It's what we get for allowing density to be zoned locally, and it's something that other countries just don't even allow when it's bad enough that homelessness is a problem. "Your city block is being upgraded to a megatower, here's due payment for your home and you get first right of refusal on a free home in the megatower." Be warned, though; once you become an established local, you are extremely vulnerable to falling prey to this exact behavior. I know several awesome people who finally made their wealth and bought a house in SF, and promptly turned into anti-density NIMBY folks - because they were afraid that they might not make a profit on their home, or because they liked their neighborhood, or whatever.
- pgsimp 6y ago
  I think it is understandable if people don't want the surroundings of their property cluttered with buildings.
  - wildrhythms 6y ago
    So, they are opposed to urbanization, but don't leave because they want to reap the benefits of urbanization?
  - yks 6y ago
    It is understandable that people are selfish but why society as a whole should pay for that? It is a relatively recent development, no more than a century, that people actually have such a power to derail urbanization while at the same time profiteer off of it. Society just pays [1] those people basically because they were born at the right time. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-05/nimbyism-is-a-huge-drag-on-america-s-economic-growth https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-05/nimbyism-...
renewiltord 6y ago
Well, it's not like you're treated any different by anyone except losers so why care?

by tqi 6y ago

Guest42 6y ago

I find it pretty ironic that in Idaho they would oppose a scenario that is aligned to “free market” principles and that Oregon would oppose immigration. I once took a job in Portland and had stuff thrown at my car because of the CA license plate along with screaming “go back to your own state.” Opinions change very quickly once they involve people personally.

rayiner 6y ago
“When California sends people north to Oregon, they’re not sending their best and brightest. They’re drug dealers and smugglers. Some, I assume, are good people.” — my sixth generation Oregonian wife.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

zippergz 6y ago

I've lived in several US cities over the course of my life, and the only constant is that whoever you talk to, the problems are caused by the people who moved there after them.

ashtonkem 6y ago
I’d say that another constant is the belief that living in a place for a certain period of time confers a sense of ownership over a city, along with the right to decide who should and should not live there. You obviously see that in states where Californians are moving, but you even see that in California against those who moved there recently for a job. Frankly I find it completely bizarre.
- gwright 6y ago
  Without taking an opinion on whether that "sense of ownership" is right or wrong, I would say that the response to gentrification is another example of the phenomena you are describing.
- zippergz 6y ago
  I know this is kind of the opposite of the (mostly joking) point I made that you replied to. But the thing I find bizarre is that people can't understand why other people oppose change in the place they live in. Most people choose places to live because they like those places. I think it's safe to say that the things they like extend beyond the four walls of the residence they buy or rent. They might like the walkability, or the views, or the diversity of the neighborhood, or the proximity to friends and family. All of these are things that are subject to change over time, and are more likely to change as the demographics of the town do. The shops you liked to walk to get priced out and replaced with Starbucks and Lululemon. The views get blocked by new buildings. The diversity goes away as people are priced out. The friends and family move because rent went up too much. How can you possibly be surprised that people don't want the things they like about the place they live to change? This doesn't mean they "own" the city, but it does mean it's quite understandable for them to try to do things to prevent the change if they can. I'm not arguing that this is good, or even completely rational in all cases, but it's far from surprising.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    > How can you possibly be surprised that people don't want the things they like about the place they live to change? People can and should obviously get upset (or excited!) about specific changes. What I'm more surprised at is the idea that some people have that any change at all is unacceptable. It's not like the town that one loved sprung up into existence as is, it took change to get the parts that you like in the first place! No one has an affirmative right for their town to remain as-is from their favorite point in time, as that's just not how life works. I'm specifically thinking of my time in Santa Monica, with the residents thinking that they should be able to keep their small town vibe despite living close to one of the largest metropolitan areas in the United States. It struck me as neigh upon delusional to think that one can live near a major city and demand that the city halt expansion wherever it might be convenient to you. That's just not how humanity has ever worked, ever. Cities expand, live too close to them at your own peril.
tqi 6y ago
The two most populous states in the US are California and Texas. One demonizes immigrants for moving in and destroying the local culture / way of life. The other, of course, is home to The Alamo.
- JKCalhoun 6y ago
  Lived in California for decades now. I have no idea what you are on about.
  - tqi 6y ago
    It's a joke about how both hate people coming in from out of state
- nostrademons 6y ago
  Still ambiguous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alamo,_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alamo,_California
kamaal 6y ago
Standard with any kind of human movement. Once they are in, people want the door shut right behind them.

davidw 6y ago

I don't think the article frames it that way, really, if you look at the conclusion. I'd also highly recommend his book for an introduction to land use politics, centered around the bay area: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/585765/golden-gates-by-conor-dougherty/ https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/585765/golden-gates...

tqi 6y ago
I can see that, but the headline[1] and much of the first half of the article[2] strongly imply it (imo). [1] The Californians Are Coming. So Is Their Housing Crisis [2] Example: According to a recent study by Redfin, the national real estate brokerage, the budget for out-of-town home buyers moving to Boise is 50 percent higher than locals’ — $738,000 versus $494,000. In Nashville, out-of-towners also have a budget that is 50 percent higher than locals. In Austin it’s 32 percent, Denver 26 percent and Phoenix 23 percent.

jayd16 6y ago

Why is it everyone else's problem to accommodate you? >I'm not the one who decided to not build enough new housing for 30 years. California's population has increased 4x since 1950 vs 2x for the country as a whole, more so in SF. To say there is no new housing is just ignoring the (finally waning) population boom.

tqi 6y ago
It's not everyone else's problem. No one owes me new housing. But it's also not my fucking fault that housing prices are going up.
- jayd16 6y ago
  Indeed, its a byproduct of rapid growth. For whatever reason people seem to need to find a specific population to demonize.
nine_k 6y ago
The OP pays a market-rate rent and local taxes for the accommodation. What "everybody else" is doing?
- jayd16 6y ago
  The tone suggests OP is entitled to more and that housing policy should change to benefit them over other residents. Its a common sentiment I see on HN that seems to suggest California should continue to bend to support new residents. I have no problem with the people that move to California but the back pressure is bound to happen and native Californians seem despised for it.
  - tqi 6y ago
    Again, I don't mean to imply that anyone owes me anything. But as I said, I'm not the one who decided how much housing to build. And I'm not the one who decided how much rent to charge. Both of those decisions were made by "native" Californians (whatever that means). So all I'm objecting to is the notion that I (and other "transplants") the ones solely responsible for this mess.

Lammy 6y ago

> Why is this always framed as a problem caused by people looking for a place to live? It would have been hard to win friends or votes if anti-housing people 50 years ago disclosed what segment of "people looking for a place to live" bothered them so much. It's no coincidence that this all starts around the 1968–1974 period: https://belonging.berkeley.edu/racial-segregation-san-francisco-bay-area-part-2 https://belonging.berkeley.edu/racial-segregation-san-franci...

floatingatoll 6y ago

The NIMBY problem suggests that it's not so much your fault at all - the locals would have passed zoning laws preventing housing for you from being built, as they did in SF ("protect our views" and such) - but actually the fault of the locals for resisting density upgrades. Imagine, in SimCity terms, if your Low-Density High-Wealth Residential citizens passed a ballot measure preventing you from building Medium-Density Residential zones, and you have the essential problem of SF and other regions in a nutshell. People don't like density upgrades, and they fight against them tooth and nail. It's what we get for allowing density to be zoned locally, and it's something that other countries just don't even allow when it's bad enough that homelessness is a problem. "Your city block is being upgraded to a megatower, here's due payment for your home and you get first right of refusal on a free home in the megatower." Be warned, though; once you become an established local, you are extremely vulnerable to falling prey to this exact behavior. I know several awesome people who finally made their wealth and bought a house in SF, and promptly turned into anti-density NIMBY folks - because they were afraid that they might not make a profit on their home, or because they liked their neighborhood, or whatever.

pgsimp 6y ago
I think it is understandable if people don't want the surroundings of their property cluttered with buildings.
- wildrhythms 6y ago
  So, they are opposed to urbanization, but don't leave because they want to reap the benefits of urbanization?
- yks 6y ago
  It is understandable that people are selfish but why society as a whole should pay for that? It is a relatively recent development, no more than a century, that people actually have such a power to derail urbanization while at the same time profiteer off of it. Society just pays [1] those people basically because they were born at the right time. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-05/nimbyism-is-a-huge-drag-on-america-s-economic-growth https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-05/nimbyism-...

renewiltord 6y ago

Well, it's not like you're treated any different by anyone except losers so why care?