3 ms·

That's because leadership is failing. The correct response of leaders is to ignore wealthy citizens attempting to prop up their multi-million dollar 3bed4bath

That's because leadership is failing. The correct response of leaders is to ignore wealthy citizens attempting to prop up their multi-million dollar 3bed4bath properties and let them know, "We're going to zone more areas for residential development, sorry. 2500 square foot homes shouldn't be $3 million in any area in America." And all these rich liberals - and they are liberals - use the same bullshit line over and over, "I'm all FOR affordable housing... I'm just afraid it'll change the character of our neighborhood." Bull. Shit. You. Lying. Fuck. You thought you'd be able to set up your grandchildren for life because you chose what was a relatively sleepy, and honestly kinda shitty, city back in the 1970s. Fuck you and fuck off. What they're really afraid of is that some politician who really does give a shit about the city will come along and upend their apple cart and their 50 year old brownstone will only be worth $1 million instead of $7 million when they die.

nobodyandproud 4y ago
Anger aside (directed more at liberals or NIMBYs?), California and San Francisco is limiting its potential. Wealth of the area is being strangled by a magnitude. As an individual owner, however, it’s irrational to not fight. So how would you incentivize growth? It can be done, but I do think the lawmakers will have to be creative about it.
- nineplay 4y ago
  > Wealth of the area is being strangled by a magnitude How so?
  - nobodyandproud 4y ago
    For one, real estate value isn’t fixed. A lot of two small houses can made into a condo that serves eight families or more (a very tiny condo). The values of those eight condos isn’t equal to the two houses; the total value will be eventually be quite higher yet individually be more affordable. That’s just the start. Let’s suppose 1000 single family homes were converted into a 4000 units. The construction alone means economic activity, though that’s temporary. 3000 more families means more to that much more demand for services in the long term. Which ripples into more demand for service jobs, generating a demand for labor. More incoming labor means more people, which means more construction activity due to demand. Rinse and repeat. San Francisco is missing out however, because the window of opportunity is passing; that is, if it hasn’t already passed.
nineplay 4y ago
> let them know, "We're going to zone more areas for residential development, Why? This may seem deliberately naïve but in the context of the current discussion, why should more areas be zoned for residential if people are leaving the Bay Area? If there are residents who hate the Bay Area, can't afford it, and are no longer stuck there now that they can WFH then it sounds like they are cheerfully leaving. The wealthy citizens keep their houses and neighborhoods and perhaps the rest of us get a break from the ceaseless complaining. It's an easier solution than massive rezoning proposals.
- urthor 4y ago
  Because human beings have a right to live in an affordable home. There's no reason that, given increased construction, Bay Area prices cannot DECREASE. Imagine that. Having your monthly home payments go down by 10% a year, due to increased supply. Treating land as a source of wealth, even for the 4 bedroom 3 bathroom middle class, is highly immoral.
- deltaonefour 4y ago
  The amount of residential zoning is NOT the problem. It is the restrictions on existing zoning. People want to maintain a suburban way of life for a population that is changing into a city. What right does a person have to prevent me from turning my home into a 4 unit apartment complex? No right, yet this is the rule that prevents suburbia from transforming into a city. It is like a growing reptile refusing to shed.. Instead it stays put growing bigger and bigger until it's suffocates and explodes. The bay area has has already suffocated... the exodus is it's guts spilling out of a rupture in the skin.
sumedh 4y ago
> What they're really afraid of is that some politician who really does give a shit about the city will come along and upend their apple cart The opposition party in Australia in 2019 wanted to take some policies which makes investing in houses more profitable which might have lowered house prices but majority of people in Australia are homeowners so they didnt vote for opposition party.
themitigating 4y ago
Are you calling me a "lying fuck" because I offered my opinion about the situation?
- deltaonefour 4y ago
  No he called you a lying fuck because he thinks you're not being honest. I don't think you're lying. But most definitely what he says about liberal democrats is true. https://youtu.be/hNDgcjVGHIw https://youtu.be/hNDgcjVGHIw Attacking conservatives was just poor taste and off topic. The reaction you got was well deserved because you tried to give something neutral a political bent.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    1. First rule of comments on Hackernews is "be kind". My statement didn't attack any single user on this site. If the user disagreed with me he can simply state that with a counter argument. 2. Conservative pundits have made remarks implying politics/a political party are to blame. I don't think it's politically neutral and that's what I was commenting on. Examples below where the population decline is discussed. Foxnews - segment on the crime issues and the population decline. Saying that "a rare breed, a Republican" ... "community activist is trying to save his city". Then when talking about the DA and a recall "..who is the notoriously soft on crime DA in San Francisco". [1] Washington Times - "In recent years, more people have left California for other states than have moved there, a trend Republicans say is a result of the state’s high taxes and progressive politics" [2] Newsmax - [Headline]"DeSantis Concerned About California Exodus; Calls San Francisco 'Dumpster Fire'" (Desantis quote's are the main portion of the article) It's like the leftism, they will not draw the connection between their leftist ideology and the destruction that's all around them,"" [1]https://video.foxnews.com/v/6305307974112#sp=show-clips https://video.foxnews.com/v/6305307974112#sp=show-clips [2]https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/may/7/california-population-declines-first-time/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/may/7/california-p... [3]https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/desantis-california-exodus-san-francisco/2022/04/26/id/1067296/ https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/desantis-california-exodus...

nobodyandproud 4y ago

Anger aside (directed more at liberals or NIMBYs?), California and San Francisco is limiting its potential. Wealth of the area is being strangled by a magnitude. As an individual owner, however, it’s irrational to not fight. So how would you incentivize growth? It can be done, but I do think the lawmakers will have to be creative about it.

nineplay 4y ago
> Wealth of the area is being strangled by a magnitude How so?
- nobodyandproud 4y ago
  For one, real estate value isn’t fixed. A lot of two small houses can made into a condo that serves eight families or more (a very tiny condo). The values of those eight condos isn’t equal to the two houses; the total value will be eventually be quite higher yet individually be more affordable. That’s just the start. Let’s suppose 1000 single family homes were converted into a 4000 units. The construction alone means economic activity, though that’s temporary. 3000 more families means more to that much more demand for services in the long term. Which ripples into more demand for service jobs, generating a demand for labor. More incoming labor means more people, which means more construction activity due to demand. Rinse and repeat. San Francisco is missing out however, because the window of opportunity is passing; that is, if it hasn’t already passed.

nineplay 4y ago

> let them know, "We're going to zone more areas for residential development, Why? This may seem deliberately naïve but in the context of the current discussion, why should more areas be zoned for residential if people are leaving the Bay Area? If there are residents who hate the Bay Area, can't afford it, and are no longer stuck there now that they can WFH then it sounds like they are cheerfully leaving. The wealthy citizens keep their houses and neighborhoods and perhaps the rest of us get a break from the ceaseless complaining. It's an easier solution than massive rezoning proposals.

urthor 4y ago
Because human beings have a right to live in an affordable home. There's no reason that, given increased construction, Bay Area prices cannot DECREASE. Imagine that. Having your monthly home payments go down by 10% a year, due to increased supply. Treating land as a source of wealth, even for the 4 bedroom 3 bathroom middle class, is highly immoral.
deltaonefour 4y ago
The amount of residential zoning is NOT the problem. It is the restrictions on existing zoning. People want to maintain a suburban way of life for a population that is changing into a city. What right does a person have to prevent me from turning my home into a 4 unit apartment complex? No right, yet this is the rule that prevents suburbia from transforming into a city. It is like a growing reptile refusing to shed.. Instead it stays put growing bigger and bigger until it's suffocates and explodes. The bay area has has already suffocated... the exodus is it's guts spilling out of a rupture in the skin.

sumedh 4y ago

> What they're really afraid of is that some politician who really does give a shit about the city will come along and upend their apple cart The opposition party in Australia in 2019 wanted to take some policies which makes investing in houses more profitable which might have lowered house prices but majority of people in Australia are homeowners so they didnt vote for opposition party.

themitigating 4y ago

Are you calling me a "lying fuck" because I offered my opinion about the situation?

deltaonefour 4y ago
No he called you a lying fuck because he thinks you're not being honest. I don't think you're lying. But most definitely what he says about liberal democrats is true. https://youtu.be/hNDgcjVGHIw https://youtu.be/hNDgcjVGHIw Attacking conservatives was just poor taste and off topic. The reaction you got was well deserved because you tried to give something neutral a political bent.
- themitigating 4y ago
  1. First rule of comments on Hackernews is "be kind". My statement didn't attack any single user on this site. If the user disagreed with me he can simply state that with a counter argument. 2. Conservative pundits have made remarks implying politics/a political party are to blame. I don't think it's politically neutral and that's what I was commenting on. Examples below where the population decline is discussed. Foxnews - segment on the crime issues and the population decline. Saying that "a rare breed, a Republican" ... "community activist is trying to save his city". Then when talking about the DA and a recall "..who is the notoriously soft on crime DA in San Francisco". [1] Washington Times - "In recent years, more people have left California for other states than have moved there, a trend Republicans say is a result of the state’s high taxes and progressive politics" [2] Newsmax - [Headline]"DeSantis Concerned About California Exodus; Calls San Francisco 'Dumpster Fire'" (Desantis quote's are the main portion of the article) It's like the leftism, they will not draw the connection between their leftist ideology and the destruction that's all around them,"" [1]https://video.foxnews.com/v/6305307974112#sp=show-clips https://video.foxnews.com/v/6305307974112#sp=show-clips [2]https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/may/7/california-population-declines-first-time/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/may/7/california-p... [3]https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/desantis-california-exodus-san-francisco/2022/04/26/id/1067296/ https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/desantis-california-exodus...