5 ms·

Because SV and Vancouver housing shortage is exacerbated by NIMBY zoning crap restricted by politics outside of your so-called capitalistic forces. Even if the

Because SV and Vancouver housing shortage is exacerbated by NIMBY zoning crap restricted by politics outside of your so-called capitalistic forces. Even if the system works as you say it would, is the outrageous human cost it entails just a detail for you? We are not trading transistors or currency notes, we are trading people. “Pricing a demographic out” means dislocating vulnerable families again and again as they desperately try to sustain and make an honest living. If we can devise a better system than this abattoir you describe, we owe it to any existing conscience to try and implement it. It’s only natural to feel like the system is working because you’ve been successful. It takes a better person than natural to think beyond how things have worked for them and try to think of the whole system and it’s participants.

immigrantheart 4y ago
When I mentioned “system is working” I mean system as in systems thinking. I edit my post to clarify. Please refer to that. I don’t live in SF or Bangalore. I also don’t own a property. I’m interested in this discussion, as I say, from Game Theory and Systems Thinking perspective. Lets refer to that.
- ramraj07 4y ago
  I still gave my answer nonetheless. Capitalism and related “systems” don’t always (or ever?) work perfectly in human society. Because human nature is unnatural, driven by greed/emotions and illogical. See this great article explaining it in an engineering company sense: https://danluu.com/nothing-works/ https://danluu.com/nothing-works/
  - immigrantheart 4y ago
    My friend, you are exactly describing systems thinking… Greed is part of systems.
- solarmist 4y ago
  Humans are not in fact rational actors which means most of our understanding of economics is deeply flawed.
jollybean 4y ago
Vancouver has built tower after tower after tower, it's not recognizable from 25 years go. Also - it's not the responsibility of local residents to demolish their homes and move into flats 'so you can live there'. The NIMBYism argument is rubbish as you have no right to influence or dictate the terms by which some other community wants to live. If people want to live in homes instead of jammed into skyscrapers Hong Kong pr NY style - which many would view as a horribly reduced quality of living - it's their choice. NY, HK - two of the most densely urban place in he world have not solved the 'housing crisis' - they're among the most expensive places in the world to live. That said, cost of living has skyrocketed far beyond what can be attributed to that - fairly high migration, a lot of foreign buyers (only 4% directly, but 'kids with citizenship using parents money' amounts to a big other cohort) and that is very easily enough to drive prices. Combined with low interest rates, an aging population with incredible voting power/influence, a booming economy and there you have it. 'Globalization' means SF and Van. basically are 'up for grabs' by everyone on the planet, not just locals. 1/2 of the real estate in the most posh parts of London are owned by foreigners for he very same reason. There needs to be a total rethink on how taxation works in those parameters. That said, it's rational: if a lot of talent wants in, prices will be higher. I don't know if 'artists' are going to be able to live there without some kind of very specific interventions. Other things, such as public transport can have a huge effect - if SF Bay were to be amalgamated into at least some kind of 'mega city' you might see high speed commuter trains. Imagine a very fast train from Stockton, Pleasanton, Gilroy, Santa Rosa - getting you to 'wherever' in the Bay area within 25 minutes? There's tons of real estate around the Bay Area, for artists, working class, middle class, regular folks, people who want 'big houses' etc.. it just not 'accessible' to the core. Or even micro/satellite offices as a civic mandate: building out offices that can be adjusted in size quickly, so that Salesforce, FB, Snap etc. will all have offices in San Jose, SF, Sacramento and bounce back and forth as needed.
- klipt 4y ago
  Vancouver has crazy low property tax which explains the rampant speculation and unaffordability. And capital gains - without limit - aren't taxed for primary residences.
- favflam 4y ago
marcinzm 4y ago
I think the point is that this possibly doesn't really matter and there is no level of building that will keep up. It's cheaper to move to SF than it is to build a house in SF and always will be. Allowing more housing won't help until you get to an very massive number of units as you'll simply have even more people moving in which will fuel the crisis even more until construction cannot keep up. Worse construction prices will skyrocket which will impact anyone wanting to do any renovation or maintenance (including existing landlords) which will drive rents up even more.
- jt2190 4y ago
  > It's cheaper to move to [city] than it is to build a house in SF and always will be. This is exactly it. Further, attempts to preserve the current population size of a city and keep things the same as they are can only try to deprive newcomers of the infrastructure needed to support themselves (housing, transit, etc.), but not actually make it illegal for people to move in. And quite clearly, they will move in anyway. Even cities that try to adapt can only grow so quickly, as it takes time to build new infrastructure, but new arrivals can come at any time. In some ways I expect this problem will get worse, as the population of people who are decoupled from a particular location increases. “Work from home” is nearly the same thing as “work from anywhere”, and I expect that a lot of people will want their “anywhere” to be the currently trendy locale, and will throng from place to place.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nradov 4y ago
A better system would be to create incentives for economic growth in other areas rather than trying to cram ever increasing numbers into a few limited existing urban areas.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Yes, if the goal is to bring prices of SF/NYC down, then make more SF/NYC. Of course, that type of dense land development is impossible in today’s legal/political/voting system.
  - newaccount2021 4y ago
thatfrenchguy 4y ago
> housing shortage is exacerbated by NIMBY zoning crap restricted by politics outside of your so-called capitalistic forces. I mean, there is a cultural aspect to it. I remember a few of my white American friends being shocked at the idea of raising kids in a condo, because « having a house and a yard » is the only way to have kids. Those people, I’m sure, will turn into nimbys in the future because « this housing is not for us ».
- jelliclesfarm 4y ago
  Disclosure: I am a NIMBY. There is definitely a cultural gap here. Most immigrants value stable housing they can own and like minded community. Diversity occurs between different communities and not expected between every individual we interact with.. Social status is important. This is the Old World. Most immigrants start out as stateless or on uncertain visas with far away homes. The psychological need to own a home where it is your castle is very deep. Immigrants are almost always NIMBYs in America. I have examined the reasons why I am a NIMBY. And I am ok with it. Moving to another country and culture for economic reasons is rewarding on one hand but requires painful sacrifices. I have tried to explain this to Americans and those who didn’t have to leave their home countries and rebuild their identity and lives…some say they understand, but most don’t get it. That’s ok. There is nothing wrong with being YIMBY or NIMBY. Market forces will decide. I have also observed that most self declared YIMBYs become NIMBYs when they sign their first 30 year mortgage. The weight of a mortgage is heavy. Home ownership is not for everyone and it’s not a walk in the park. Those who willingly bear it will hedge their bets and fight for their investment. This is normal.
  - ramraj07 4y ago
    The issue with NIMBYism is it often builds structures around itself to insulate from change in the practices (local government incentives). Only top down mandates can break the cycle, but places like the US are not socialist enough to do that. Incidentally all my immigrant friends and relatives who do NIMBY arguments also vote republican and supported Trump. For what it’s worth.
    - 4y ago

immigrantheart 4y ago

When I mentioned “system is working” I mean system as in systems thinking. I edit my post to clarify. Please refer to that. I don’t live in SF or Bangalore. I also don’t own a property. I’m interested in this discussion, as I say, from Game Theory and Systems Thinking perspective. Lets refer to that.

ramraj07 4y ago
I still gave my answer nonetheless. Capitalism and related “systems” don’t always (or ever?) work perfectly in human society. Because human nature is unnatural, driven by greed/emotions and illogical. See this great article explaining it in an engineering company sense: https://danluu.com/nothing-works/ https://danluu.com/nothing-works/
- immigrantheart 4y ago
  My friend, you are exactly describing systems thinking… Greed is part of systems.
solarmist 4y ago
Humans are not in fact rational actors which means most of our understanding of economics is deeply flawed.

jollybean 4y ago

Vancouver has built tower after tower after tower, it's not recognizable from 25 years go. Also - it's not the responsibility of local residents to demolish their homes and move into flats 'so you can live there'. The NIMBYism argument is rubbish as you have no right to influence or dictate the terms by which some other community wants to live. If people want to live in homes instead of jammed into skyscrapers Hong Kong pr NY style - which many would view as a horribly reduced quality of living - it's their choice. NY, HK - two of the most densely urban place in he world have not solved the 'housing crisis' - they're among the most expensive places in the world to live. That said, cost of living has skyrocketed far beyond what can be attributed to that - fairly high migration, a lot of foreign buyers (only 4% directly, but 'kids with citizenship using parents money' amounts to a big other cohort) and that is very easily enough to drive prices. Combined with low interest rates, an aging population with incredible voting power/influence, a booming economy and there you have it. 'Globalization' means SF and Van. basically are 'up for grabs' by everyone on the planet, not just locals. 1/2 of the real estate in the most posh parts of London are owned by foreigners for he very same reason. There needs to be a total rethink on how taxation works in those parameters. That said, it's rational: if a lot of talent wants in, prices will be higher. I don't know if 'artists' are going to be able to live there without some kind of very specific interventions. Other things, such as public transport can have a huge effect - if SF Bay were to be amalgamated into at least some kind of 'mega city' you might see high speed commuter trains. Imagine a very fast train from Stockton, Pleasanton, Gilroy, Santa Rosa - getting you to 'wherever' in the Bay area within 25 minutes? There's tons of real estate around the Bay Area, for artists, working class, middle class, regular folks, people who want 'big houses' etc.. it just not 'accessible' to the core. Or even micro/satellite offices as a civic mandate: building out offices that can be adjusted in size quickly, so that Salesforce, FB, Snap etc. will all have offices in San Jose, SF, Sacramento and bounce back and forth as needed.

klipt 4y ago
Vancouver has crazy low property tax which explains the rampant speculation and unaffordability. And capital gains - without limit - aren't taxed for primary residences.
favflam 4y ago

marcinzm 4y ago

I think the point is that this possibly doesn't really matter and there is no level of building that will keep up. It's cheaper to move to SF than it is to build a house in SF and always will be. Allowing more housing won't help until you get to an very massive number of units as you'll simply have even more people moving in which will fuel the crisis even more until construction cannot keep up. Worse construction prices will skyrocket which will impact anyone wanting to do any renovation or maintenance (including existing landlords) which will drive rents up even more.

jt2190 4y ago
> It's cheaper to move to [city] than it is to build a house in SF and always will be. This is exactly it. Further, attempts to preserve the current population size of a city and keep things the same as they are can only try to deprive newcomers of the infrastructure needed to support themselves (housing, transit, etc.), but not actually make it illegal for people to move in. And quite clearly, they will move in anyway. Even cities that try to adapt can only grow so quickly, as it takes time to build new infrastructure, but new arrivals can come at any time. In some ways I expect this problem will get worse, as the population of people who are decoupled from a particular location increases. “Work from home” is nearly the same thing as “work from anywhere”, and I expect that a lot of people will want their “anywhere” to be the currently trendy locale, and will throng from place to place.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

nradov 4y ago

A better system would be to create incentives for economic growth in other areas rather than trying to cram ever increasing numbers into a few limited existing urban areas.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
Yes, if the goal is to bring prices of SF/NYC down, then make more SF/NYC. Of course, that type of dense land development is impossible in today’s legal/political/voting system.
- newaccount2021 4y ago

thatfrenchguy 4y ago

> housing shortage is exacerbated by NIMBY zoning crap restricted by politics outside of your so-called capitalistic forces. I mean, there is a cultural aspect to it. I remember a few of my white American friends being shocked at the idea of raising kids in a condo, because « having a house and a yard » is the only way to have kids. Those people, I’m sure, will turn into nimbys in the future because « this housing is not for us ».

jelliclesfarm 4y ago
Disclosure: I am a NIMBY. There is definitely a cultural gap here. Most immigrants value stable housing they can own and like minded community. Diversity occurs between different communities and not expected between every individual we interact with.. Social status is important. This is the Old World. Most immigrants start out as stateless or on uncertain visas with far away homes. The psychological need to own a home where it is your castle is very deep. Immigrants are almost always NIMBYs in America. I have examined the reasons why I am a NIMBY. And I am ok with it. Moving to another country and culture for economic reasons is rewarding on one hand but requires painful sacrifices. I have tried to explain this to Americans and those who didn’t have to leave their home countries and rebuild their identity and lives…some say they understand, but most don’t get it. That’s ok. There is nothing wrong with being YIMBY or NIMBY. Market forces will decide. I have also observed that most self declared YIMBYs become NIMBYs when they sign their first 30 year mortgage. The weight of a mortgage is heavy. Home ownership is not for everyone and it’s not a walk in the park. Those who willingly bear it will hedge their bets and fight for their investment. This is normal.
- ramraj07 4y ago
  The issue with NIMBYism is it often builds structures around itself to insulate from change in the practices (local government incentives). Only top down mandates can break the cycle, but places like the US are not socialist enough to do that. Incidentally all my immigrant friends and relatives who do NIMBY arguments also vote republican and supported Trump. For what it’s worth.
  - 4y ago