32 ms·
Marc Andreessen says he’s for new housing, but records tell a different story
- exogeny 4y agoI guess "it's time to build" doesn't refer to Atherton, more specifically anything that might take his property value down.
- mikeyouse 4y agoImagine being worth multiple billions of dollars and complaining about your property value being decreased by someone building townhouses in your zip code. Just last fall they spent nearly $200 million on an estate in Malibu. Just the most detestable people.
- t6jvcereio 4y ago
- lalaland1125 4y agoHe's always been a scumbag too. Look at how Marc helped fund the Axie Infinity ponzi scheme that caused lots of regular people to lose millions of dollars. Marc has always been about harming other people to get money for himself.
- t6jvcereio 4y ago
- zackees 4y ago
- dougb5 4y agoNot always! He seemed genuinely motivated to help society back in the Mosaic era.
- almost_usual 4y agoLess about property values and more about having to interact with commoners.
- typon 4y agoDetestable isn't a strong enough word.
- lalaland1125 4y agoIt’s Time to Not Build
- waldothedog 4y agoThis is an underrated comment :)
- gcampos 4y agoIt's Time to Build (somewhere else)
- shp0ngle 4y agoIt’s Time to Build, But Not In My Backyard
- t6jvcereio 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- fasthands9 4y agoSuper embarrassing. At least the random couple with low income that lucked into a house 40 years ago is semi sympathetic. They don't travel the world and may not be able to move somewhere else as nice after selling (especially with prop 13 tax lock ins) But Marc can live anywhere and travel anywhere.
- thatfrenchguy 4y agoAlso, why the hell would you care about your property value as a billionaire?!?
- drunkpotato 4y agoMy opinion, as in I think this is true but I can't claim it's an immutable law of nature: You don't get a billion dollars by leaving pennies on the table. You need a ruthless focus on money über alles. And that focus never turns off, and doesn't exclude anything. Everything is an investment. Everything is about how it can make you more money, or potentially make you more money. Everything is about increasing that lifetime high score. So it's not that you care about your property value per se, it's that you care about every value, obsessively, all the time.
- kiernanmcgowan 4y agoIt’s easy to espouse a basic idea of “build more housing”, but the truth is that when you get to the nitty gritty of doing it there’s suddenly disagreements from all sides. Get a room full of engineers who “want a consistent style guide” to agree on the particulars of one and you’ll see this dynamic in action.
- deanCommie 4y agoAll analogies are flawed but this one doesn't even register to me as useful. Style is inherently subjective so obviously there's going to be personal preferences, and consistency means enforcing one and only one version of preferences onto others. That's not exactly the problem with more housing. It's not a question of style or character. People use those words when they talk about "the character of their neighborhood changing" or "these ugly concrete monstrosities", but really it's always the same thing: 1. I don't want my housing prices to go down. I want my house prices to only go up. 2. Lower priced housing will be populated by more poor people who are more likely to bring crime, and I don't want crime to increase in my area. The thing is, they're not even wrong. They exaggerate, sure. But you can sympathize with both factors. On 1: The American dream has been sold to everyone that housing is a guaranteed investment that should always go up. For many people it's the only retirement hope they have or any inheritance they hope to pass to their children. On 2: Income IS inversely correlated with crime. Because our modern capitalist culture decided not to optimize for a social safety net, the only solution we've thought of so far is deep segregation (not racial, but economic) So, in isolation, individuals making the classic "I want more Housing but Not In My Back Yard" argument is entirely logical. But in the aggregate, it only contributes to a vicious spiral. And there is NO good reason for a billionaire to dare make that argument. He can afford a small dip to his housing value. Holy shit, leave some crumbs for the rest of us.
- bobthepanda 4y agoSegregation actually probably causes crime, because crime is strongly associated with concentrated poverty. Of course, you can't get rid of concentrated poverty without spreading poor people into rich areas, so no progress has been made there.
- TedShiller 4y agoAtherton and the surrounding area don’t have the water for more people. In a way, the water crisis is the final wake up call that more housing is not the answer.
- jefftk 4y agoEven at desalination rates residential water is orders of magnitude cheaper than Atherton rents.
- TedShiller 4y agoNobody is forcing people to live in Atherton
- tptacek 4y agoNope, that's true. They're forcing them not to.
- TedShiller 4y agoThey’re forcing me not to drive a Lamborghini
- tptacek 4y agoThat's also true, we just don't give a shit about whether you can drive a Lamborghini.
- TedShiller 4y agoThe same "we" also doesn't care whether you can live in Atherton
- pixelatedindex 4y agoDon’t move the goalposts
- cratermoon 4y agohttps://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/marc-andreessens-opposition-housing-project-nimby/671061/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/marc-andre...
- lalaland1125 4y agoIt's Time To Not Build
- RichardCNormos 4y agoI've served on a city Planning Commission, and I can say categorically that you never truly know who someone is until the city tries to re-zone the property around their house. Being fair to Andreessen and his family, they likely bought their house knowing that the property was zoned single-family residential, as was the entire neighborhood, and that it's relatively difficult to change land use policy. That is, until the Legislature of the State of California decided it knew better than every incorporated city, and wrote a housing density law that superseded local zoning regulations. I've always been surprised that tech billionaires don't spend money influencing State Senate/Assembly races. Maybe that will change.
- exogeny 4y agoI don't think anyone really has much difficulty understanding his argument or why he's making it; the rank hypocrisy of his long-standing and consistent statements around building more housing is at issue.
- lalaland1125 4y agoYou seem to be completely ignoring how NIMBY policies like Marc's led to our current and increasingly bad housing crisis.
- shaburn 4y agoWhat housing crises? We have a declining population and double digit vacancies in commercial real estate.
- shaburn 4y ago...What a revealing week in Bay Area Real Estate... - SF has least competitive rental market in state, report finds Occupancy rates and rents are up, but the city has less demand than elsewhere https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/ https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/ - Netflix puts Los Gatos campus up for sublease as growth slows https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2022/08/12/netflix-puts-165k-sf-los-gatos-campus-up-for-sublease/ https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2022/08/12/netflix-puts... - ADP to close 63K sf office in Pleasanton https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2022/08/09/adp-to-close-63k-sf-office-in-pleasanton/ https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2022/08/09/adp-to-close... - Spec home developer slashes asking price on Woodside estate by 42% https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2022/08/08/spec-home-developer-slashes-ask-on-woodside-estate-by-42/ https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2022/08/08/spec-home-de... - SF home prices drop $370K from peak, per Compass report https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2022/08/11/sf-home-prices-drop-370k-from-peak-per-compass-report/ https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2022/08/11/sf-home-pric... - Sand Hill Road reckons with its future Landlords of the iconic Silicon Valley office strip rethink strategies in remote-work era https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2022/08/09/sand-hill-road-reckons-with-its-future/ https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2022/08/09/sand-hill-ro... - StubHub to close SF office as tech exodus continues Online ticket reseller to build up offices in LA and New York https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2022/08/08/stubhub-to-close-sf-office-as-tech-exodus-continues/ https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2022/08/08/stubhub-to-c... - San Jose leads U.S. cities in falling home prices From April to June prices fell an average of $75K, or 5.1 percent https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2022/08/02/san-jose-leads-u-s-cities-in-falling-home-prices/ https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2022/08/02/san-jose-lea...
- abhv 4y agoMarc may personally feel one way, and credit to him for writing that essay; his wife and family may have a different opinion, and in families, compromises are a norm. The letter was signed first by Laura.
- tfehring 4y agoIt was also signed by Marc. It would be perfectly fine for him and his wife to have a difference of opinion, but if Laura holds a view that Marc holds to be actively harmful, as he has argued in the past, it's still hypocritical for him to endorse that view. Though I think it's more likely that Marc is just the more typical "Yes In Your Backyard" kind of hypocrite.
- plicense 4y agoOr they just went with Alphabetical order when signing the letter? Order doesn’t mean much to be honest in this context - you don’t put your name on the letter unless you really agree with what’s on the letter. Now it maybe possible that Marc never co-signed this in which case he will speak out hopefully and explain his stance better.
- wahern 4y ago> Or they just went with Alphabetical order when signing the letter? The letter starts out, "I am writing". A spouse will usually use "we" when contemporaneously speaking for both themself and their partner. > you don’t put your name on the letter unless you really agree with what’s on the letter. Now it maybe possible that Marc never co-signed this in which case he will speak out hopefully and explain his stance better. Also possible his wife included his full name for the cachet without first asking, but upon finding out Marc decided this wasn't a hill he wanted to die on. He wouldn't have been the first spouse to make that choice. The letter would evince the fundamental problem with NIMBYism even if Marc didn't willingly sign on--people who oppose projects are typically far more aggressive and outspoken than those accepting of new development, who tend to be more passive; and this dichotomy and one-sided paralysis manifesting between members of the same household only makes the contrast more stark. It's far more important that people appreciate that dynamic, whether it existed in this case or not. There's absolutely nothing new about people being hypocritical, and righteous indignation about hypocrisy, however sweet, doesn't lead to people affirmatively advocating for development, or any other policy for that matter. People will relinquish veto power not as a consequence of others' hypocrisy, but when they realize and accept that they, themselves, are not up to the task of counteracting NIMBYs, and the only practical alternative is to make their own, personal sacrifice (i.e. relinquishing a not insubstantial measure of power and control) for the greater good.
- adolph 4y agoBut building enough housing won't happen because people rationally conclude it's in their best interests. It will happen when the decision-making levers are removed from local government. I don't understand why "enough housing" can't be in people's best interests. Removing voice in local decisions will not increase loyalty.
- tptacek 4y agoThere are too many countervailing forces. People are loss-averse and disengaged from local policy; they only peek out when they get wind of some aspect of their lifestyle being threatened, and their natural response is to say "no changes, further study required". They don't have the time or the energy to think through the long term issues. They're concerned about their property value. Or they're concerned about parking. Or they're concerned that there's too much parking. Or they're concerned that utilities buildout will raise their taxes. Or they're concerned about shade. Or they're concerned about crime. Or they're concerned about noise. You can keep rattling them off, and the point is that everyone's got a different set of idiosyncratic issues and so, as an advocate for development, you've got a bursting dam of random public opinion to push back against, and it's just a nightmare. The result is that almost everything in wealthy suburbs is SFZ, because there's never concentrated objections to SFZ, but there's organically concentrated objections to multi-family zoning even if people don't actively work to coordinate it. It won't fix itself, you can't advocate or educate your way out of it. It's a powerful default that just naturally works to keep the most valuable/useful real estate in the country reserved for sprawling houses for wealthy people. It's easy to say "no" and risky to say "yes", so everyone says "no" to new development. Hence the current proposal du jour (which I buy into): stop letting municipalities cordon off all their lots for SFZ, at the state level, where nobody's specifix ox is getting gored by policy decisions, which can be made in the abstract and in advance. I kind of don't give a shit about Atherton zoning. No zoning rule is going to make Atherton economically diverse. If Atherton wants to exempt itself from statewide multifamily zoning requirements, it could simply be taxed dearly for the privilege. The residents there can afford it.
- abhv 4y agoMarc may personally feel one way, and credit to him for writing that essay; his wife and family may have a different opinion, and in families, we "disagree but commit" all the time The letter was signed first by Laura, who did not co-author the essay.
- buzzy_hacker 4y agoYou disagree and commit when you need to choose one option from multiple. In this case, Marc could just choose to not sign the letter.
- imgabe 4y agoAhh, I see you aren’t married.
- lotsofpulp 4y agoYou might be in an unhealthy marriage.
- whimsicalism 4y agoyou're just telling on yourself here, tbph
- mupuff1234 4y agoIf you actually viewed NIMBY-ism as a major societal problem you don't just "disagree but commit", and if you do, you deserve to be called out as a hypocrite.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jonas21 4y ago
- 0xy 4y agoFeel free to brush up, the word was used correctly. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/violently https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/violentl...
- nodejsthrowaway 4y agofeel free to read your own link lol
- 0xy 4y agoI did. Did you? In fact, the usage is literally listed as an example. >They are violently opposed to the plans.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- CalChris 4y agoin a very strong or vigorous manner "he coughed violently"
- tptacek 4y agoIt's unusually forceful for a planning commission objection or public comment, which is what Demsas is trying to communicate.
- jonas21 4y agoCompared to public hearings where I live, which often devolve into shouting with people forcibly removed from the room, this seemed very mild. They even said "please" and "thank you".
- 4y ago
- pigtailgirl 4y ago-- Not In My Backyard for those also wondering --
- rayiner 4y ago
- tptacek 4y agoWhat the possible hell does this have to do with anything we're talking about?
- sbf501 4y agoI can't believe in enumerating his accomplishments they left off Netscape!
- Tiktaalik 4y agoI'm not terribly surprised. In my experience the calls for more housing from the wealthy and business class are disingenuous; more often really a call for more apartments to be built exclusively in neighbourhoods dominated by the poor and working class and a continued ban of apartments in the low density single family home areas that the wealthy business owning class live in. Often this is called the "Grand Bargain," that new housing can be allowed, but only if it is constrained to a tiny area (which becomes increasingly dense), while the bulk of single family homes are left untouched. The challenge for voters is to discern between those that are calling for more housing that are genuine YIMBYs, that want to build more housing for everyone more equitably, everywhere in all neighbourhoods, and those like Andreessen, which merely want to continue on with Grand Bargain thinking, and want to continue the status quo by which the poors live as far as possible away from him.
- TaylorAlexander 4y agoI recently discovered the very very wealthy neighborhood of SF in the north west corner of the city and boy, that sure is a low density use and I would LOVE to see that area turned in to high density affordable housing. But then, those people must control the city so it doesn’t seem like that would ever happen. And hey, I honestly want all low density parts of the city densified. But it’s striking how big those houses are in that neighborhood and how low density it must be. EDIT: I think what bothers me about this neighborhood is what it represents. While so many people in the city are struggling to get by, these people have these huge homes with elaborate finishing work, huge gardens, fountains, the works. It feels gratuitous to me. And if you know anything about the history of red lining in this country, this would have been one of those areas with racial covenants in the deeds to their homes. All the power brokers of the city past and present must have lived here, and all manner of political maneuvering and disenfranchisement would have come from this place. I’d rather see it torn down, and used to build affordable housing for those in need. I just can’t find myself sympathizing with people who feel they need this much for themselves while so many people struggle for the basic necessities. I wouldn’t mind if no one had that. It doesn’t seem justified to me. EDIT2: Someone asked me what neighborhood so I looked on google maps (it's Sea Cliff) and was reminded that they also have THEIR OWN GOLF COURSE adjacent to this neighborhood. Yikes.
- shaburn 4y agoThis is the definition and I don't blame him.
- xyzzy_plugh 4y agoI'm amazed that commenters are defending this quite insulting behavior. What a joke. A system is what it does. Andreesen is a hypocrite. You know what would be fucking incredible? If he had taken the opposite stance and put his money where his mouth is. Instead, he plays the coward, unwilling to embrace his own advice.
- tptacek 4y agoI don't know what the point of personalizing it is. This is probably the most normal-person thing Andreessen has done in decades. Does it cut against a viral post her wrote a while back? Sure. But that post was still right about zoning!
- xyzzy_plugh 4y agoPersonalizing helps highlight the hypocrisy of wealthy, influential people like Andreesen. I agree that the post was right, but it discredits the author when they act so diametrically opposed to the words they write and, specifically, the action they call for. Did he not mean those words in earnest? Is there some other play he is angling for? It begs everything to be questioned.
- tptacek 4y agoI'm not sticking up for him! I think that's pretty apparent from my comments on this thread (this is one of my hobbyhorse issues). I'm just saying, in this particular situation, Andreessen is behaving like the overwhelming majority of suburban homeowners.
- adamwk 4y agoI think the semantics of NIMBY got lost recently where I’ve read tweets about YIMBY’s who are against building that effects them. People forgot the acronym NIMBY refers to people in favor of liberal policy until it affects them.
- disantlor 4y agoI was surprised by how out of touch and un-self-aware he seemed on the recent Sam Harris podcast episode. Never heard him speak before. But having heard him in his own words, I am now completely unsurprised by this article.
- wyre 4y agoI listened to that episode too. Not sure if he’s out of touch or simply only cares about his own agenda. Certainly freaked me out a little when he was speaking fondly of what I would describe as the cryptocurrency dystopia.
- rcpt 4y agoConsidering that this guy is his father in law, yeah makes sense https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Arrillaga https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Arrillaga
- LilBytes 4y agoDude's Dad was a property tycoon. Quoting wikipedia: Arrillaga established his career as a real estate developer starting in the 1960s, partnering with Richard Peery in acquiring California farmland which they converted into office space. Their partnership took off with the growth of the semiconductor industry and other high-tech businesses, such as Intel,[2] in what became known as Silicon Valley.[6] Arrillaga and Peery converted thousands of acres of farmland into office space in cities such as Mountain View, San Jose, and Sunnyvale to meet the industry's needs.[2] Over a period of 50 years, their partnership, Peery Arrillaga, built over 20 million square feet of commercial real estate, becoming one of Silicon Valley's biggest commercial landlords.[9][5][8] In 2006, he sold over five million square feet of his real estate holdings for roughly $1.1 billion to the real estate division of Deutsche Bank.[6][2] In 2020 Arrillaga ranked No. 339 on the Forbes 400 list of the richest people in America.[6] In October 2020, his net worth was $2.5 billion.[6]
- bruckie 4y agoDude's wife's dad.
- foobarqux 4y agoNow do the high-density-advocate celebrities who live in Woodside.
- EddySchauHai 4y agoHighlight of Woodside is The Village Pub, a pretty good Michelin star restaurant for Sunday brunch with a wagyu steak!
- kepler1 4y agoI just want to say, one great democratizing thing about the internet is that is lets every one spout off their mouth and be discovered, even the supremely rich. In an age where people can hire shills to act for them, create fake companies, lobbying firms, etc. at least we still are able to rely on someone's inability to control their temper and expose themselves for who they really are. No more having to guess whether under the do-gooder curated front, you're being taken for a ride underneath. Now you can know.
- kepler1 4y agoI just want to say, one great democratizing thing about the internet is that is lets every one spout off their mouth and be discovered, even the supremely rich. In an age where people can hire shills to act for them, create fake companies, lobbying firms, etc. at least we still are able to rely on someone's inability to control their temper and expose themselves for who they really are. No more having to guess whether under the do-gooder curated front, you're being taken for a ride underneath. Now you can know.
- nerdawson 4y agoYou can never really know who someone is. Only what they’ve chosen to share with you. With that in mind, this is just one more data point to form your own opinion around.
- kurupt213 4y agoMaybe that’s not the best location for affordable housing. A few townhouses built here aren’t going to alleviate the California housing crisis
- ripley12 4y agoA single spoonful won’t fill me, so why bother eating?
- hackerlight 4y agoSolving x% (x > 0) of the problem is better than solving 0% of the problem.
- renewiltord 4y agoIt's true. That's why I should be exempt from taxes. A few hundred thousand of what I pay won't help anything really.
- zucker42 4y agoAccording to Wikipedia, Palo Alto to the south is twice as dense as Atherton, and Redwood City to the north is almost twice as dense. And both those cities are not entirely residential, which Atherton appears to be. Also, neither Palo Alto nor Redwood City are particularly dense by urban standards.
- kurupt213 4y agoThat’s probably why this low density suburban community exists. It’s ok to preserve that.
- ecshafer 4y agoI personally propose the removal of ALL restrictions on building; zoning, HOAs, deed restrictions, housing covenants, etc. should all be eliminated (Personally I think this goes against the 14th amendment and that Euclid V Ambler and the Slaughterhouse cases were both ruled wrong, and as such these are all illegal against the constitution). But, this sounds like Marc Andreessen's wife is a NIMBY, and Marc Andreessen didn't sign this, or didn't feel like arguing against his wife in public.
- davidw 4y agoYou might enjoy this book: https://islandpress.org/books/arbitrary-lines https://islandpress.org/books/arbitrary-lines - he makes the case that we should get rid of zoning. Of course, there's some nuance to it, but it's worth a look. He's got a lot of expertise.
- Justin_K 4y agoWould you be ok if someone stood up a motorcycle repair shop next door? That ran 24 hour operations?
- darksaints 4y agoWhy is it that we always get absolutely ridiculous hypotheticals like this? 24 hour motorcycle repair operations? Really? Do we need to ban companies from making unsafe car tires out of earwax and chicken bones too? Or maybe could we just understand that that shit isn't gonna happen for a myriad of reasons? All of the theoretical protections that zoning affords us are already granted to us via better mechanisms. For example, noise ordinances. Why ban motorcycle shops when you can ban noise above a specific threshold? When you combine nuisance laws and environmental laws and market incentives, you've already ruled out every possible boogyman coming to ruin your quaint bougie neighborhood. All of them except the poors living in apartments.
- Justin_K 4y agoYea, this never happens: https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/what-can-i-do-about-the-motorcycle-shop-under-my-a-4099427.html https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/what-can-i-do-about-the-m...
- nerdawson 4y agoI’m usually wary when something is described as violent. Violent? It’s a letter with some caps.
- SkyMarshal 4y ago> But building enough housing won't happen because people rationally conclude it's in their best interests. It will happen when the decision-making levers are removed from local government. > More on why community input is bad. This honestly strikes me as kind of insane. Community voice in community matters is bad? Local community decision-making should be removed from local governments?
- rtpg 4y agoSeveral things: - "we need to take community input into account" gets transformed to "a small handful of people acting in bad faith can stop any process" - homeowners tend to have more access to these, but are not the only people affected by these decisions (you think the teachers or cops having to live 90 minutes away cuz they can't afford to rent in these areas are showing up here?) - Home ownership in particular just generates a perverse incentive to try and profit off of your home. That might be great for homeowners, but there's a reason rentseeking is its own economic term. I believe that the specific thing here is that community input on planning as it exists in the US is bad, for the same reason that deciding everything by referendum is bad. If you put every part of urban development up for line item veto, then you can't make much of a great plan! I personally think that public comment and the like is ... fine and good. But I do think it should be possible for a city government to lay out requirements for building a thing, and for people who meet those requirements to be able to do the thing, no matter how much others whine. If there are issues, change the requirements for future projects!
- tptacek 4y agoWe already deny communities "community voice" in all sorts of issues. The list of issues communities aren't allowed to determine for themselves is called "state law", and there's a lot of it. Demsas (Twitter has stripped some of this context off, which is probably part of why it seems insane to you) is advocating for blanket SFH zoning to be added to the list of things communities can no longer decide for themselves, because when you let communities do that, they naturally and with near-mathematical inevitability (literally, as in the forces that lead to this are almost mathematically inevitable and have nothing to do with equity or justice or privilege or anything like that) work to exclude multi-family housing.
- lettergram 4y agoWhy would anyone want multi-unit housing? Serious question. I understand if you cannot afford a single unit, sure. But why would anyone actually want a multi-unit? People are noisy, smell on occasion, etc. if a city is too crowded, find somewhere else. You’ll be better for moving where you can afford. Moving somewhere just to be in the “hot spot” or something is silly. Go move to a single family residential neighborhood and you’ll be far happier. You can have a garden, put a hole in the wall and expand a room, get a dog. Beyond personally never wanting to live that he’ll again; I personally would never want a multi-unit home in my neighborhood. I don’t want the density of people. Don’t need the problems that entails, don’t need lower property value. It makes a worse quality of life, that’s why the value drops. People who want these units want to live in a particular location, but don’t want to pay prices. And the location is more important to them. I get it. That location will be ruined by those homes; at least it will change the dynamics. That’s the unfortunate part.
- jdminhbg 4y ago> I understand if you cannot afford a single unit, sure. But why would anyone actually want a multi-unit? There are definitely circumstances in life where a multiunit is great -- single people early in life trying to meet people and make friends, for example. But even outside of that: Anyone can afford a single unit, it's just a matter of where. If you're the wealthiest of the wealthy, you can afford it basically anywhere. If you're extremely poor, it might be a shack in the middle of nowhere. Everyone else is trading off the variables of price, type of housing, and location.
- lettergram 4y agoI know a lot of poor people. None of them ever said “let me get that one bedroom”. They all did the same thing, move somewhere cheap. Live in a one bedroom, and work until they can buy a house. My point is no one wants that one bedroom, except those well off who want to live in the city. Which by definition creating apartment complexes will destroy the aesthetic and overwhelm the city resources and utilities.
- cozzyd 4y ago
- shaburn 4y agoThe reality is, often times, some for profit real estate developer with zero skin in the community want to parasite off of and compromise communities(past & future) with no regard for anyone. They often yield extreme gains where they are successful, often in proportion to the challenge of achieving that end. Additionally, property values, that serve as the basis for taxes, are derived in no small part, by the laws that define property in that community and the bounds of the community itself. The desirability of communities is a derivative of their value and the value they offer participants, is the most material factor in determine supply / demand imbalances; why for example, there is no shortage of remote deserts offering plenty of room and approval to build. Throwing those out the window obviously has instances where it is best done with caution. Out of context acronym label assignment, especially for clicks, is not always the best path.
- tptacek 4y agoI don't need real estate developers in my town to have "skin in the community". I don't want them over for BBQ or at my block party. I want them to build modern buildings to code and to perform in their role of dialing up density where there's demand from it. If they want to fuck back off to their wealthy real estate batcave after they do that, it's no skin off my back.
- shaburn 4y agoWhy have code if we're going to throw all the laws out the window? Millennium Tower in San Francisco, Champlain Towers South in Miami, etc. And what if said developer was a former president building exclusively for his followers?
- tptacek 4y agoI don't think you're going to be able to checkmate-atheist me into sticking up for the Champlain Towers building. You said that developers don't have any skin in the community. I'm telling you: I do not need a personal, durable relationship with the developers building in my town. "Skin in the community" is a silly thing to expect. I need my car not to explode or lose its brakes while I drive it, too. I don't need Audi to have skin in Oak Park; in fact, the less they know about me, the happier I am.
- sooheon 4y agoLand value tax would solve this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax Why? Everyone on earth is a NIMBY when they believe they won't be sufficiently compensated for the negative externalities of a new development. Everyone on earth is also a YIMBY when it comes to developments with positive expected externalities. This is not a moral problem, this is an economic incentive problem. We need to debug capitalism so that externalities both positive and negative are internalized, and everyone becomes IMBY-neutral. This just happens to have the side-effects of removing deadweight loss, rewarding builders and penalizing squatters, encouraging development and discouraging speculation.
- rcpt 4y agoEndlessly frustrating to imagine how incredible life in California would be under that. Instead we've got Prop 13 which is the polar opposite
- sooheon 4y agoIt's not an exaggeration to say if it were successfully implemented globally to fund a humanity dividend, it would solve poverty without demanding more from any individual unfairly. Prop 13 is a crime against economics and public finance.
- prvc 4y agoThe context for the timing of this hit-piece is that he was recently a guest on the Joe Rogan podcast.
- alexrtan 4y agoProbably not true, but even if it is being a NIMBY is still bad.
- tptacek 4y agoNo it isn't. The timing of it is that Jerusalem Demsas just wrote a widely circulated piece about why we need to take away control of SFZ rules from local communities, and she just got an excellent case-in-point. Demsas could give a flying fuck about people appearing on Rogan's show.
- wittycardio 4y agoDo you people ever get tired of defending the rich scumbags who don't care about you
- hackerlight 4y agoDescribing something as a "hit piece" implies exaggeration or mischaracterization, and I don't see any of that here.
- mise_en_place 4y agoOn the one hand I’m in favor of building more affordable housing but I can understand the viewpoint of keeping the culture of your local community intact. See what Google did to Playa Vista, it’s a really jarring, sterile contrast with the rest of LA. Primarily soulless buildings, almost Soviet Style, to house their slaves. We all need to push back against multinational corporations who would turn our local communities into the company towns of old, if given the chance.
- astrange 4y agoIf you don't like a building then change the building code so they can't build it. But make sure it's an objective standard, otherwise there's a law (the HAA) that says you can't block it. SF still runs on a system (discretionary review) that basically means people like you get to show up with subjective complaints about anything anyone anywhere does. You'll find the only way to satisfy you and someone else with different taste is if nobody builds anything.
- huevosabio 4y agoWell, this is terribly disappointing. I always liked Marc's Is Time to Build essay, it felt like the right sort of spirit. And now it feels like utter hypocrisy.
- wittycardio 4y agoMarcs full of shit. This isn't surprising in the least
- curiousgal 4y agoThe US truly has a cult of personality issue.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- elgenie 4y agoA simple glance at what he, a prominent VC, was investing in (and publicly promoting) at the time would've told you he wasn't walking the walk.
- dalbasal 4y agoT'was a great essay, but... same "hypocrisy." Most of Marc's investments went into crypto/fintech, social media and such. He dabbles in some hard, physical, even socially useful investment... but it's a 1/50 ratio. The same is true of Peter Thiel. He talks an incredibly big game about atoms & bits or the power of entrepreneurship while doing the opposite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreessen_Horowitz#Notable_investments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreessen_Horowitz#Notable_in...
- spaceman_2020 4y agoIn terms of making money for investors, its hard to argue against crypto and fintech. But in terms of actually making the world a better place, there are far bigger and better problems to solve.
- rafaelero 4y agoWhat a jerk.
- golemiprague 4y ago
- vlunkr 4y agoI’m not going to defend this but I also really don’t come to HN for twitter witch hunts. It’s really not that interesting.
- alexashka 4y agoIt's interesting that 'decreased home value' is considered a coherent argument. Imagine I come to you and say you need to stop making positive changes in your life because others compare you to me and I don't like my 'value' being decreased by your improved lifestyle. Also, can you move out of my neighbourhood? You're causing noise pollution and traffic.
- sooheon 4y agoThe flipside is equally ridiculous. Consider the homeowner who happens to be located along a newly proposed subway line. They may see their home values double or triple as construction completes, without spending a cent on improvements--in fact purely on the public dime.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- cma 4y agoSome places do it differently: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_capture https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_capture
- sooheon 4y agoYep, I'm a believer in the two pronged approach of land value tax replacing all other taxes and reduced zoning restrictions. Henry George had the remedy over a century ago.
- andrew_ 4y agoComments are already turning into flaming dogpiles.
- defterGoose 4y agoHow else would you expect people to react to a steaming pile of hypocrisy like this?
- pixelatedindex 4y agoI hope you mean steaming pile of hypocrisy by Marc
- smiddereens 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- motoxpro 4y agoAh, the classic guy writes about how to solve a problem, said problem shows up on his doorstep, guy decides not to solve it, problem continues to exist and guy continues to wonder why. Waiting for the follow up "It's time to build in places where people allow it"
- omega3 4y agoIt's even more evident with climate change.
- reactspa 4y agoThe only thing surprising here is that he conveyed his views via a public letter. Such views are usually conveyed over cigars, brandy, and prime rib, in private rooms (where smoking is not frowned at, even in CA) in very expensive restaurants.
- danans 4y agoI live in a townhome in a street single family homes on a street with apartment buildings and duplexes, and it's amazing. My children's friends live in homes ranging from 4000sqft palaces to 800sqft apartments, all within a few blocks. Mixed housing types in a community can be great. Too bad Atherton will never know the benefits.
- efitz 4y agoNIMBYism and hypocrisy aren’t traits exclusive to wealthy people. I would object if someone tried to build low income housing next to my home. I think that what I find offensive about Andreeson is the apparent hypocrisy, eg “let’s spend mostly other peoples money for a cause I like but don’t let it affect me.” I don’t really care how wealthy he is, douchebags come in all flavors.
- hgomersall 4y agoIt seems douchebags are possibly overrepresented among the wealthy.
- malermeister 4y agoI'd argue that being a douchebag is a necessary prerequisite for becoming and staying this wealthy.
- cheriot 4y agoBelow what income is someone not good enough to be your neighbor?
- hackerlight 4y agoHow disappointing from a self-described "libertarian". Freedom for me but not for thee. This is a good example of why local government doesn't work beyond basic service provision such as garbage pickup. You get negative sum decision making that is locally good but globally bad.
- proxyon 4y agoLobbying your local government for something fits with libertarianism just fine.
- hackerlight 4y agoUsing government to apply force onto an individual and violate their property rights is the unit of analysis here. Whether that government is local, state or country is besides the point.
- mannerheim 4y agoGoing to lobby my local government for total police surveillance and summary execution for those who partake in the devil's lettuce. It'll still be a libertarian paradise, though.
- NHQ 4y agoI would not change Atherton except to live there myself.
- rmk 4y agoI don't get it. He lives in Atherton, which already has insane rules about lot size to house size ratios, no public transportation, no sidewalks, nothing that even remotely hints at letting normal proles afford property there. It's very clear that the town is for rich people, and that's presumably why he lives there in the first place. What's wrong with this? It's not like he's moved to Palo Alto and bought up half a dozen houses around himself, or purchased an entire block, installed ridiculous, childish (and now seemingly permanent) decorations that lead to an insane rush of revelers every halloween and massive year-round light pollution that inconveniences neighbors or something.
- jbhouse 4y agoBad take alert
- tshaddox 4y ago> What's wrong with this? You mean other than that it’s a terrible usage of land in a region infamous for having extreme demand for housing?
- rmk 4y agoThat may be so, but if the town is set up on the premise of being a home for rich people, then it's not an individual's fault for wanting to keep things that way. That's the "General Plan" mentioned in Andreessen's comments. What he's saying is that the General Plan needs to be amended, which is correct, because drastically changing what type of housing is to be allowed is a long-term decision and should be taken in conjunction with other elements of the General Plan, which covers these matters. America is a country of laws. If there is a desire to make policy changes, then it has to be done with the consent of the governed. The majority in Atherton does not and likely will not consent to such things, and Andreessen registering his discontent is just a citizen exercising his legitimate rights.
- tshaddox 4y ago> if the town is set up on the premise of being a home for rich people Yes, the fundamental political argument here is whether “setting up a town such that some small group gets to decide what kinds of buildings a property owner can build” should be a thing. There are clearly other premises that nearly everyone agrees cannot be enforced by a town (say, “a town set up for white people only”), so it’s not good enough to simply provide a premise and say “we’re a country of laws therefore the premise shall be enforced.”
- gammarator 4y agoI thought “It’s Time to Build” was hypocritical at the time, but I didn’t expect such clear confirmation! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22913262 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22913262
- olivermarks 4y agoUrban wealthy YIYBY types are typically either driven by political ideology, a profit motive or plain old simplistic virtue signaling. Most of the big western world metropolises infrastructure is exhausted and creaking at the seams, yet the desire to pack more and more people into environments with massive issues around water, sanitation, energy and transport is sold as a human right. Far better to create new cities close to natural resources and stop 'old world' cities becoming swamped by overpopulation imo
- elgenie 4y agoThere are huge economies of scale that come with density that lower the per-capita cost of water, sanitation, energy, and transport; and accompanying gains in per capita productivity. And, for reasons that should be obvious, the places "close to natural resources" in which it makes sense to have cities tend to already have cities in them.
- olivermarks 4y agoHistorically this is correct but once you pack too many people in, whether a tent, a car or a city quality of life breaks down and things get worn out fast unless you are wealthy. Density and lower per capita cost doesn't mean quality of life as many third world cities and Favelas illustrate
- mupuff1234 4y agoAnd of course his wife is a self proclaimed philanthropist who wrote a book called "Giving 2.0". Doesn't get any more SV than that.
- habosa 4y agoI think most of us had a lot of respect for Marc because of the Netscape days but hopefully we can now all agree that he’s become a total fraud motivated by greed. His whole-hearted embrace of everything crypto despite being obviously smart enough to know most of it was a Ponzi was the last straw for me. He’ll do anything to win the VC game. At this point when I see that a company got Andreesen Horowitz money I think about it as one step above SoftBank money in terms of negative signals.
- pas 4y agoBefore anyone else would think "oh they just invested in some dumb web3 harmless crypto thing"... They invested 150M USD in a pay-to-earn crypto ponzi scheme and dressed it up as a democratization of whatever (as a good thing): https://mobile.twitter.com/JohnReedStark/status/1540299879293063173 https://mobile.twitter.com/JohnReedStark/status/154029987929...
- 127 4y agoCalling crypto a pyramid scheme is much more accurate than Ponzi. These two concepts are quite different.
- CPLX 4y agoA ponzi happens when a return is promised, and then is provided to early investors from funds provided by later investors, rather from productive enterprise. That’s an almost exact description of most crypto “projects” including the one referenced here, Axie Infinity.
- 127 4y agoSure, it works for some. But for most the return is not (officially) promised and if you want to actually access the money, you have to sell the asset on a market. With Ponzi, you can just collect dollars and run away. Some Ethereum scam coins do work like this, ETH in place of USD, but Ponzi as a generalization for the entire crypto space is simply incorrect.
- dalbasal 4y agoSo, I get that there's a major hypocrisy here... and that this demonstrates NIMBYism and such. Personally, the passive-aggressive tone of the tweet makes this especially aggravating: "purported concerns about..." That said, I think we just have to accept that affordable housing concerns are always hypocrisy-laden. Home owners, have an interest in high prices. Home ownership overlaps significantly with active citizenry. Banks want higher prices. Mortgage solvency depends on it. Bank regulator regulators too, for the same reason. All that translates into entrenched political hypocrisy. You can't beat it by yelling at it. FWIW, I'm personally not sure that increased density is the actual answer anyway... or what is. Are there any demonstrative examples with increased housing density making meaningful price impacts on an already expensive city. Do we even have examples of cities becoming significantly cheaper, that aren't a crisis? In any case, I think we should call this kind of behaviour the "Andreessen Effect."
- nemo44x 4y ago> FWIW, I'm personally not sure that increased density is the actual answer anyway... or what is. The truth is the materials and labor to build what most people consider “housing” is out of reach for a lot of people and these people don’t know it. There’s a reason that nearly all new multi-family development is “luxury” - it’s the only profitable way. Anything that’s “affordable” is government subsidized. Not to mention upkeep. So we need to change what people think affordable housing is. It’s a lot closer to a trailer than it is to a fixed structure. I don’t know if a lot of people are willing to accept that.
- ripley12 4y agoDensity is just a side effect of building more homes (housing supply goes up in a given area -> density goes up). The effect of supply on price is, well, unambiguous.
- dalbasal 4y agoI disagree. This isn't barber shops and orange juice. Real estate is a far more structured market. Limited space. Price-pegged debt availability. Transport/infrastructure. Long term asset inflation trends. This creates a lot of ambiguity around the effect of supply on price... within realistic boundaries. A simple supply and demand curve rarely models most urban real estate markets usefully.
- thematrixturtle 4y agoFun fact: the town of Atherton is also singlehandedly responsible for delaying and almost derailing Caltrain's electrification project, because the electric poles needed would, and I quote, "compromise the quaint character of our neighborhood" (shock horror). https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2017/12/21/atherton-battling-caltrain-over-electrification-poles https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2017/12/21/atherton-battlin... And of course: "Other speakers protested the aesthetic and safety impacts of the taller, and heavier, poles, saying they would also reduce property values." The town also voted to close their own Caltrain station, because they clearly don't want the kind of riff-raff who use public transport there.
- spaceman_2020 4y agoLooking at these complaints, how did the government ever get all the land needed for major infrastructure projects in the past - like the interstate network?
- pas 4y agoeminent domain. and it was sold as cleaning up the slums (eg. poor minority neighborhoods) and of course the response to that is why things are going very slowly nowadays https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/11/29/penn-station-robert-caro-073564 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/11/29/penn-stati...
- michaelt 4y agoThe first bit of infrastructure that gets put in produces huge economic benefits. Back in 1760, it made economic sense to have canals dug by hand because they were so much more efficient than transporting coal by horse and cart. It was incredibly expensive, but the thing that came before it was even moreso. And in the 1830s, private investors could expect to make a profit building a railway because it as so much faster. And compared to hand-digging a canal, the costs weren't that bad! It was incredibly expensive, but the thing that came before it was even moreso.
- whimsicalism 4y agoPublic comment/veto as it exists now did not exist at that point in history.
- mannerheim 4y agoI know somebody who blocked development of houses that would have disrupted their view. But rather than blocking it through lobbying, they banded up with their neighbours to buy the property that was going to be sold to developers. This seems like the only legitimate form of NIMBYism to me. OK, you say that building housing here will disrupt your quality of life - then put your money where your mouth is. Andreesen no doubt could afford to do this as well, but obviously it is cheaper to lobby the government to stop it for you.
- TedShiller 4y agoWhy would you want more housing in a place of natural beauty?
- bambax 4y ago> IMMENSELY AGAINST multifamily development! Money makes good people become despicable. In the case of Marc Andreessen, it made someone who was already bad, pretentious, arrogant, and full of himself, evil (and a hypocrite).
- chiefalchemist 4y agoWhy is The Atlantic pointing the finger at the likes of Andreessen? Does he magically (cough cough) have more influence over politicians and regulators than he is supposed to have? Or maybe it's not fashionable for the media to look at who has been in a position of power a long time (e.g., Pelosi) and yet the needle on a known issue doesn't move? When friends get on such a witch-hunt train, I suggest that they watch the film The Candidate (with Robert Redford). Why? Because - with rare dialogue exceptions - you could remake that film today and you probably wouldn't notice it's 50+ yrs old. 50 yrs is a long time for the needle not moving. Andreessen might be a participant and a symptom but he's not among The Root Cause. He's not the tone deaf holding the 6 Jan hearings. He's not jetting to Taiwan. Etc. Let's not allow The Atlantic to distract us from The Root Problem. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Candidate_(1972_film) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Candidate_(1972_film)
- civilized 4y agoLet me get this straight. 1. It's a magical thinking witch hunt to suggest that local voters prevent housing from being built. 2. The Root Cause is the Jan 6 hearings and Nancy Pelosi visiting Taiwan. Did I miss anything here?
- chiefalchemist 4y agoThe dots here are simple. We have long standing elected officials (start at the WH and work you're way down) who insist on doing a lot of things (read: grandstanding; just two recent examples given) except for the things they should be doing. But we're to believe The Root Cause is Andreessen? Or maybe it's Trump? Sure, let's play the age old game of distraction and deflection. But let's call that journalism??? Did you miss anything? Yes, apparently the pile of stink that's sitting right in front of you. The irony of you questioning me (i.e., stating the obvious) should not be overlooked.
- itsthejb 4y agoThrowing in my few pennies regarding my experiences living in cities. Having lived in a few well known places, with different urban planning characteristics: - Tokyo. Very praised for its successes, and there are quite a few: extremely liberal zoning (it seems), based around mass transit rather than cars (great!). Despite the small living space sizes for some, reportedly still very affordable, wide low/med/high density options for at various price-points spread all over. On the other hand, rarely worth having more than prefab buildings (earthquakes), masssssive sprawl, and legendarily horrendous commutes for those living in the suburbs. More than half the city is really quite ugly, grey and concrete. - Berlin. Lots to like based on good previous planning decisions, and that war-time destruction and reunification somewhat provided opportunities to modernise. The city centre is mostly medium-density 5/6 storey apartment buildings. This seems to be a great sweet-spot that packs in a lot of people, but still leads to a strong community feeling in neighbourhoods. Even in the city centre, extremely green, and very accessible nature thanks to effective public transport. On the other hand, the last few decades of success may have had a lot to do with its historical anomalies, and now that it's normalising in lines with other similar cities, feels like these benefits have been drying up. - London. Creaking under the legacy of its historical city centre. Planned under the assumption that of course everyone is living in multi-million Pound townhouses in Zone 1. Everyone else is SOL; the rest is low density suburbs with transit that forces most journeys to be via the centre, since there is no outer ring line (great in Berlin, not so great in Tokyo). Seems hardly any medium density: endless neighbourhoods of single family homes, or skyscrapers. Anyway, none of this is new. It seems pretty clear that the political inability to fix these issues are a massive drain on economies already, and this will only get worse in the future with increasing urbanisation. Frankly, seems the only solution is building entire new cities. Asia has certainly benefited from this in the 20th century... My thoughts
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- bodono 4y agoIn my experience a lot of YIMBYs are actually NIMBY but YIYBYs - Not in my back yard, but yes in YOUR back yard. A classic example is so-called progressive Robert Reich who has many times opined about the lack of affordable housing, eg, https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/07/22/time-invest-affordable-housing-and-education-not-tear-gas-batons-and-state https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/07/22/time-invest-af... But strongly objected to a plan to build affordable housing in his own neighbourhood: https://www.johnlocke.org/good-for-thee-not-for-me-robert-reich-edition/ https://www.johnlocke.org/good-for-thee-not-for-me-robert-re...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- helen___keller 4y agoFirst rule of housing discussions, everyone is for housing as long as it's the "right" kind of housing in the "right" location Second rule of housing discussions, nobody agrees on what is the "right" housing and what is the "right" location
- civilized 4y ago> Second rule of housing discussions, nobody agrees on what is the "right" housing and what is the "right" location Specifically, in any given location, the people whose voices are considered agree that their location is not the right location.
- helen___keller 4y agoThis is the common case, but even if you get two upzoning advocates to discuss someone else’s neighborhood, they STILL likely won’t agree on what kind of housing, often disagreeing about if the housing (or how much of it) should be market rate, whether removing existing green space is acceptable, what form of density should be allowed (eg towers vs midrise), whether there should be restrictions on style to match the existing neighborhood character, and so on
- TimPC 4y agoEveryone always talks about what people in the suburbs want as if urban life is so terrible and suburban life is amazing. I’m not a huge fan of the suburbs as positives are few and far between. I choose to live in one because finding a great school in the core of the city is next to impossible and when it occurs it’s next to $5 million dinky bungalows because the land prices are insane. I’d be thrilled to own a decent 3 bedroom condo in a good school district but under 10% of condos are 3BR and almost all condo buildings aren’t sending their population to good schools.
- balderdash 4y agoI stopped reading after the first sentence: “Usually when rich people rage against the possibility that someone less wealthy might become their neighbor, nobody bats an eye.” I can understand writing an article about high profile peoples’ hypocrisy, but ascribing these kind of motives to their behavior?
- resalisbury 4y agoEvery YIMBY has a NIMBY in their family...
- saeranv 4y agoHonestly, Andreesen's understanding of the underlying cause for new housing is really poor, I'm not surprised that he is also a hypocrite, or his ignorance has lead him, perhaps unintentionally, to a hypocritical act. This probably sounds harsh, but if anyone doubts me, I urge you to actually read Andreessen's “It’s Time to Build”. It's shockingly naive. An entire essay written to convince us of "the need to build", without the awareness that the obstacle to building is not the lack of a SV visionary pointing out the obvious, but the tangle of policy and political incentives. Read Ezra Klein's rebuttal for a more comprehensive review of why Andreesen's essay misses the mark completely[1]. I do want to highlight one positive attribute about him though. He actually had the courage, and intellectual sensibility to write out his argument and publish it in a public forum for others to read. That's the first step towards getting your ideas challenged, and, in the back-and-forth of criticism, strengthening your ideas. As far as I know he didn't engage with the more robust criticism of his ideas (i.e. Ezra Klein) and so that second step is missing, but I at least admire that he took the first step. It's frustrating to me how much society idolizes wealthy "visionaries" who don't actively publish or debate their ideas, like Musk, or Thiel (with regards to his political activity), giving them the benefit of doubt that there's nuance and intentionality behind their actions without any evidence of such. [1] https://www.vox.com/2020/4/22/21228469/marc-andreessen-build-government-coronavirus https://www.vox.com/2020/4/22/21228469/marc-andreessen-build...
- wyre 4y agoI can’t help but think of course Andreeson wants us to build. The man’s a venture capitalist and has a lot to gain when other people build things.
- jollybean 4y agoThe argument that there is 'insufficient housing' in the area is a bit rubbish. There will never be 'sufficient housing' as there will always be demand to live there, until it's a a terrible place to live ... after which demand will drop and it will be 'cheap to live'. There will always be 'high demand places to live' and the reality is no everyone can afford to live there, too bad, that's not how it works. There's plenty of wonderful places to live in the US. The use of the term 'NIBYISM' is wrong, people have a right to control how their communities are developed. If someone buys a home on a big acre because they really hate traffic, noise etc. then that's the whole point. Collectively, it's their choice - not ours. The logic of 'Build Everything Until it's Manhattan' because you or I want to afford to live there is a bit absurd in a country with vast and open spaces, especially when 'Building Like Manhatten' often doesn't seem to solve the problem anyhow. NY, the 'densest' place, is one of the most expensive. If people believe there's a housing expense problem in the area ... then: How many Googlers does it take to 'Screw In A Lightbulb' and by that I mean 'Build a High Speed Commuting Train' ? - that connects Santa Rosa, to Pleasonton, to Morgan Hill and further? There's a lot of space. Connect it better. WTF are all the geniuses doing that CalTrain is so slow, doesn't loop around the Bay? SF Bay is not 'terrible' but it's nothing compared to good cities for transportation. That's something that needs to be invested in. Get rid of the very bad idea of 'Everything Being in One Place'. Literally get some of these companies out of the Valley. Take 5 companies and set up shop in Portland, or Petaluma, or Sacramento - and spread it all out further across the US. Stop bringing everyone there, making everything there. Yes, there are some advantages, but there's also advantages in creating other centres. All of that said: Andreesen's use of 'all caps' is a bit ridiculous, seriously, I don't ever write in 'all caps' it feels a bit childish. I can just see him huffing red, slamming his fists on the table. My god, is this what happens to us when we get a bit of money and turn 55?
- shaburn 4y agoAtherton home values per Redfin in June(so when average levered payment costs were about 35% less, RTO was still imminent, and tech layoffs were just budding)... - Median sales price -4% - # of homes sold -36% year over year Valuations are in a free fall, followed by the calls for filling shortages in the true NIMBY areas that define them. See the Job report release today for more Fed food for the next 0.75% raise. https://www.redfin.com/city/820/CA/Atherton/housing-market https://www.redfin.com/city/820/CA/Atherton/housing-market
- shaburn 4y agoLooks like the YC v A16Z feud is really heating up.
- nunez 4y agoIf I moved into a neighborhood with a culture that I liked, and developers threatened to build a sub-neighborhood that changes that culture while making my property less valuable and harder to get out of, I would be pissed as well, especially if they can build on empty space elsewhere nearby This outrage happens all of the time at HOA-run neighborhoods