4 ms·

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The government fails in its mission if it lets a handful of people hold the most valuable land hostage. At least

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The government fails in its mission if it lets a handful of people hold the most valuable land hostage. At least Nimbys should pay much higher property taxes to make up for the economic damage they cause the rest of the country, so they can live in a single family home next to a major city downtown. Free up zoning, get rid lopsided tax breaks like prop 13. Or end up with a revolution like in France in 1700s. Or lose to China. I painted with some broad strokes here, but the picture is clear.

jollybean 4y ago
"The government fails in its mission if it lets a handful of people hold the most valuable land hostage." ? This is upside down. It's only valuable because you want it. It's not 'intrinsically valuable'. The great thing about America as opposed to most parts of the world is that there is plenty of land. Go 100Km out of SF Bay and land is very cheap. 'Life Liberty and Pursuit of Hapniness' means a bunch of angry people cannot arbitrarily force you out of your home, because they want to 'move in'. If this were a perverse issue of resource hoarding - i.e. everyone in SF was living on 30 acres of land and not willing to budge, then this would be a different discussion. The 'American Dream' is not the right to live in the most choice plot in the US, it's just to have a nice spot, safe, secure etc.. If SF/Valley is where the jobs are, and you can't afford to live there - that's very fair. Push the companies to get some kind of good transport in place. Or adapt in some other way.
- thatfrenchguy 4y ago
  > Or adapt in some other way. Like, you know, by building more housing. Government restrictions is what put us in this mess in the first place.
  - jollybean 4y ago
    I don't think you're getting it. It's not in any way your right to tell some people living in a community that they need to build more (or anything else). It's incredibly selfish and petty, and oddly people are trying to couch this in some kine of 'liberation' language? 'The government' isn't really restricting, so much as community members. Parts of SF (or wherever) don't want to build skyscrapers - it's their choice - and none of your business, unless you're a resident. There's tons of land in the US, and a lot of it is very inexpensive.
    - SR2Z 4y ago
      This assumes that there are no people in SF who would like to densify their land, which is OBVIOUSLY not true. It's not outsiders vs SF residents, it's SF residents vs SF residents.
- SR2Z 4y ago
  The American Dream is not when some NIMBY tells me I can't bulldoze my SFH to put up a six story apartment building. Your framing of this issue is frankly ridiculous - it's SF homeowners vs other residents and property owners in SF who would like to densify their land. It's not about people's right to live anywhere, it's about people's right to do as they wish with their property.
  - jollybean 4y ago
    I wasn't framing it as the 'American Dream' I was responding to the OP's comment talking about 'Life Liberty etc.'. Your framing of 'I can do whatever I want' is what's 'ridiculous'. You can't build a skyscraper on your property arbitrarily because it affects others in the immediate vicinity. If the community doesn't want skyscrapers - you can't have skyscrapers. There are infinity locations to build in the USA, which means can whatever you want on the whole. Go away from the community that doesn't want the things you want to build, to one that does.
    - favflam 4y ago
      The issue is your defining the community arbitrarily to be people in some city limit. Others including myself are defining community to be the homeless, workers who would like to be residents, but live outside the city limit, and employers who probably want more workers in commuting distance. Unfortunately, there is only one San Francisco peninsula with cold air from the Pacific and warm air from the desert. I think the California legislature should over rule the city to deal with the homeless crisis and cost of living crisis. The Nimbys in San Francisco, like other cities, have no skin in the game to fix that problem as they benefit enormously from the crisis they make much worse.
    - SR2Z 4y ago
      We're not talking about skyscrapers, which have serious infrastructure requirements and need to be planned. We're talking about low-rise apartment buildings. Perhaps if I rephrased your statement as "If the community doesn't want poor people and minorities - you can't have poor people and minorities" you'd better understand why this is a morally bankrupt argument. Given the price of housing, it's effectively the same thing.

jollybean 4y ago

"The government fails in its mission if it lets a handful of people hold the most valuable land hostage." ? This is upside down. It's only valuable because you want it. It's not 'intrinsically valuable'. The great thing about America as opposed to most parts of the world is that there is plenty of land. Go 100Km out of SF Bay and land is very cheap. 'Life Liberty and Pursuit of Hapniness' means a bunch of angry people cannot arbitrarily force you out of your home, because they want to 'move in'. If this were a perverse issue of resource hoarding - i.e. everyone in SF was living on 30 acres of land and not willing to budge, then this would be a different discussion. The 'American Dream' is not the right to live in the most choice plot in the US, it's just to have a nice spot, safe, secure etc.. If SF/Valley is where the jobs are, and you can't afford to live there - that's very fair. Push the companies to get some kind of good transport in place. Or adapt in some other way.

thatfrenchguy 4y ago
> Or adapt in some other way. Like, you know, by building more housing. Government restrictions is what put us in this mess in the first place.
- jollybean 4y ago
  I don't think you're getting it. It's not in any way your right to tell some people living in a community that they need to build more (or anything else). It's incredibly selfish and petty, and oddly people are trying to couch this in some kine of 'liberation' language? 'The government' isn't really restricting, so much as community members. Parts of SF (or wherever) don't want to build skyscrapers - it's their choice - and none of your business, unless you're a resident. There's tons of land in the US, and a lot of it is very inexpensive.
  - SR2Z 4y ago
    This assumes that there are no people in SF who would like to densify their land, which is OBVIOUSLY not true. It's not outsiders vs SF residents, it's SF residents vs SF residents.
SR2Z 4y ago
The American Dream is not when some NIMBY tells me I can't bulldoze my SFH to put up a six story apartment building. Your framing of this issue is frankly ridiculous - it's SF homeowners vs other residents and property owners in SF who would like to densify their land. It's not about people's right to live anywhere, it's about people's right to do as they wish with their property.
- jollybean 4y ago
  I wasn't framing it as the 'American Dream' I was responding to the OP's comment talking about 'Life Liberty etc.'. Your framing of 'I can do whatever I want' is what's 'ridiculous'. You can't build a skyscraper on your property arbitrarily because it affects others in the immediate vicinity. If the community doesn't want skyscrapers - you can't have skyscrapers. There are infinity locations to build in the USA, which means can whatever you want on the whole. Go away from the community that doesn't want the things you want to build, to one that does.
  - favflam 4y ago
    The issue is your defining the community arbitrarily to be people in some city limit. Others including myself are defining community to be the homeless, workers who would like to be residents, but live outside the city limit, and employers who probably want more workers in commuting distance. Unfortunately, there is only one San Francisco peninsula with cold air from the Pacific and warm air from the desert. I think the California legislature should over rule the city to deal with the homeless crisis and cost of living crisis. The Nimbys in San Francisco, like other cities, have no skin in the game to fix that problem as they benefit enormously from the crisis they make much worse.
  - SR2Z 4y ago
    We're not talking about skyscrapers, which have serious infrastructure requirements and need to be planned. We're talking about low-rise apartment buildings. Perhaps if I rephrased your statement as "If the community doesn't want poor people and minorities - you can't have poor people and minorities" you'd better understand why this is a morally bankrupt argument. Given the price of housing, it's effectively the same thing.