4 ms·

I 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 e

by rmk 4y ago

I 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 ago
Bad 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 ago
  That 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.”
    - rmk 4y ago
      No, the focus of the article on the individual, Marc Andreessen and vilifying him for arguing for density in cities like San Francisco while voting against density in his suburban town. The underlying idea is that billionaires should opt for the exact same living standards as people who make orders of magnitude less than them if they write articles commenting on housing, and if they do not do so, they are hypocrites, while conveniently ignoring the fact that these very same billionaires single-handedly sway government revenues because of the taxes they pay and drive ginormous GDP increases that enable governments to solve housing problems, for example, by creating efficient transportation networks, or providing incentives to companies to locate themselves in ways that alleviate or avert housing crises. The real culprit is not Andreessen complaining to his mayor, but the Bay Area and California politicians who have squandered the enormous revenues of the past 10 years and have literally nothing to show for their housing efforts.

by rmk 4y ago

jbhouse 4y ago

Bad 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 ago
That 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.”
  - rmk 4y ago
    No, the focus of the article on the individual, Marc Andreessen and vilifying him for arguing for density in cities like San Francisco while voting against density in his suburban town. The underlying idea is that billionaires should opt for the exact same living standards as people who make orders of magnitude less than them if they write articles commenting on housing, and if they do not do so, they are hypocrites, while conveniently ignoring the fact that these very same billionaires single-handedly sway government revenues because of the taxes they pay and drive ginormous GDP increases that enable governments to solve housing problems, for example, by creating efficient transportation networks, or providing incentives to companies to locate themselves in ways that alleviate or avert housing crises. The real culprit is not Andreessen complaining to his mayor, but the Bay Area and California politicians who have squandered the enormous revenues of the past 10 years and have literally nothing to show for their housing efforts.