8 ms·
>“I am writing this letter to communicate our IMMENSE objection to the creation of multifamily overlay zones in Atherton,” wrote Andreessen and his wife Laura A
by helloworld11 4y ago
>“I am writing this letter to communicate our IMMENSE objection to the creation of multifamily overlay zones in Atherton,” wrote Andreessen and his wife Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen in an email. “Please IMMEDIATELY REMOVE all multifamily overlay zoning projects from the Housing Element which will be submitted to the state in July. They will MASSIVELY decrease our home values, the quality of life of ourselves and our neighbors and IMMENSELY increase the noise pollution and traffic.”
The comment, which was originally reported by The Atlantic’s Jerusalem Demsas, was also reviewed by Fortune. Andreessen did not respond to either outlet’s request for comment. The other executives who opposed the 58 housing units also did not respond to or declined Fortune’s request for comment.
Andreessen’s opposition seems to represent a shift from his expressed views in an essay he publish on his venture capital firm’s website at the start of the pandemic, titled “It’s Time to Build.”
“We can’t build nearly enough housing in our cities with surging economic potential—which results in crazily skyrocketing housing prices in places like San Francisco, making it nearly impossible for regular people to move in and take the jobs of the future,” he wrote.
In the essay, Andreessen also noted that his perspective was probably an uncommon one for someone of his ilk: “I expect this essay to be the target of criticism.”
The hypocrisy is delicious, and so typical of many ostensibly progressive tech magnates in California (and elsewhere). NIMBYsm at its peak.
- imapeopleperson 4y agoI don’t understand why NIMBY hate is in vogue. What’s wrong with letting a nice town stay nice? We don’t need to turn everything to shit just to satiate socialist schadenfreude. Build it somewhere else
- aidenn0 4y agoTFA is specifically about Andreessen publicly saying CA needs to build more housing, but then privately saying "don't build it here" > Build it somewhere else If everybody says "build it somewhere else" where are you supposed to build?
- echlebek 4y agoGuess you aren't a people person after all.
- imapeopleperson 4y agoHow so? Ruining a nice town hurts more people than it helps
- AnonMessiah 4y agoHow does more housing ruin a town?
- washbrain 4y agoPeopleperson is trying to dodge around saying they don't want to live near people who are lower income. Often this is a way of saying, "I don't want people with different ethnic, racial, or cultural backgrounds near me." It's pretty transparent discrimination, tbh.
- jjulius 4y agoI tried to respond to them constructively elsewhere, but this is the correct take so I'm just gonna agree with it.
- imapeopleperson 4y ago
- spfzero 4y agoIt's more the density that people object to, not more people, or more housing. It's when there's an area in the denominator. More density means more cars, more air pollution, more traffic, more noise. More accidents, more time searching for parking and standing in lines. It may not add up to ruin, but it's objectively worse.
- 4y ago
- t_mann 4y agoIf that's how you think, then at least I hope you're not writing massive essays asking (the rest of) the entire the nation to build more housing, even if it makes neighbourhoods ugly.
- golemotron 4y agoThere's plenty of space in the US. Grow wide, not dense. It's good policy.
- wonnage 4y agourban sprawl is both economically and ecologically unsustainable
- washbrain 4y agoWhat you are saying is, "convert farmland to housing and highways." It's an inefficient use of space, it socially isolates us, and it has devastating ecological consequences.
- golemotron 4y agoSuddenly, all non-urban space in the US becomes farmland.
- washbrain 4y agoShow me land on the periphery of an urban center that's large enough to meaningfully expand housing that isn't farmland, rangeland, forestry, or a protected habitat/important ecological preserve. I'll wait, take your time.
- golemotron 4y agoYes, legislative capture and over-zealous zoning are real problems.
- lxgr 4y agoAnd I don‘t understand why the idea that the only way to keep things nice is to never change anything, ever, is en vogue. I find it incredibly uninspired and depressing.
- helloworld11 4y agoI have nowhere near the same problem with someone who claims the things Andreesesen does in his angry rebuke of this project, if that person doesn't at the same time preach for elsewhere what they very visibly don't want to practice close to home. Again, this is why NIMBYsm is so detested, not so much because of its specific arguments but because of its often overtly disgusting hypocrisy.
- philosopher1234 4y agoI hate nimbys for their effect on the world, not their hypocrisy. Even if mark andressen wasn’t a two faced bastard I’d hate him.
- astrange 4y agoSocialist? Letting you build whatever you want on your own property is the spirit of capitalism. NIMBYs are the ones who want every town to be run by central planning.
- washbrain 4y agoSocialism doesn't even mean central planning either. Most socialists are just interested in, "everyone who wants a home should be able to get a home." Not necessarily a big fancy home with a three car garage, but somewhere they can call their own. Even if that means billionaires might lose some of their home value.
- astrange 4y agoSure, but targeted political messaging shouldn't be concerned with things like factual accuracy. The people who complain about socialists don't know any self-identified US socialists, since those Bernie-type people didn't exist before 2016.
- washbrain 4y agoTotally. I'm a Marxist and I have no idea where half the complaints about socialists even come from. People just make up a bogeyman and slap the "socialism" label on it.
- standardUser 4y ago"Build it somewhere else" Usually if the solution seems that simple, and you think everyone else is an idiot for not realizing it, then they are not the ones being idiots. It's a pattern we should all consider when we "don't understand" a widely understood concept.
- VectorLock 4y ago>Build it somewhere else Okay... _where_? Thats the whole point of why NIMBY is reviled. Not In My Back Yard.
- TigeriusKirk 4y agoIf no one is saying YIMBY, does anyone really want it?
- washbrain 4y agoPeople are saying YIMBY. There's a whole YIMBY movement.
- TigeriusKirk 4y agoSo there's the answer to where.
- washbrain 4y agoHmm... So thinking out loud, this zoning change is being considered by the city council, right? Who are elected representatives of the area, right? Wouldn't that indicate there's at least some YIMBY attitude in this location?
- lakecresva 4y ago> does anyone really want it? It's probably safe to assume the people who need affordable housing want it.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- armadsen 4y agoIt's not socialist to allow private entities to build the housing that the market demands on the land they own in order to make money. It's much closer to "socialist" to have state apparatus dictating that people not build housing. I own and live in an 80-year old single family house. My neighborhood -- one of the more desirable ones in my city -- has had a massive ongoing build out of 3-5 story apartment buildings in the past 10 years. They don't bother me in the least. It's either that or people can't afford to live here, which seems bad.
- imapeopleperson 4y ago> AB 686 requires all public agencies to “administer programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing, and take no action inconsistent with this obligation” AB 686 also makes changes to Housing Element Law to incorporate requirements to AFFH as part of the housing element and general plan to include an analysis of fair housing outreach and capacity, integration and segregation, access to opportunity, disparate housing needs, and current fair housing practices.
- mbesto 4y ago> Build it somewhere else Reminds me of a Ben Shapiro quote: Let's say for the sake of argument that all of the water levels around the world rise by, let's say, five feet over the next 100 years. Say 10 feet over the next 100 years. And it puts all of the low-lying areas on the coast underwater. Let's say all of that happens. You think people aren't just going to sell their homes and move?
- cammikebrown 4y agoFish need housing too!
- washbrain 4y agoThis quote is hilarious to me. Sell it to who, Ben? Sell it to who? "Want to buy my land?" "Sure, why are you selling?" "It'll be literally devoured by the seas soon and totally worthless." "That sounds like a great investment. Sold!"
- harambae 4y ago"Sell the homes to who... Aquaman?" [0] https://youtu.be/0-w-pdqwiBw?t=16 https://youtu.be/0-w-pdqwiBw?t=16
- effingwewt 4y agoThis is about to happen as we speak now that Colorado is stopping water deliveries. How do you sell a multi-million dollar home in a remote location with no access to water? If people want houses to be treated as investments, then they should be punished as such when their bet goes sideways. Lose money imvested in stock/crypto/whatever? Too bad so sad. House value even so much as commits the sin of not appreciating because of whatever reason? Stop the presses and think of the children!
- washbrain 4y agoI don't want housing to be an investment. But I also own a house that will inevitably be treated like one because that's the currently supported cultural standard. I don't think ordinary folks should lose their shirts off their backs if they lose their homes. Sure, I have zero sympathy for the investors who are manipulating markets, but the every day worker? Nah.
- djbebs 4y agoBecause its no different from a seizure of private property without due process and compensation. My land, I decide what gets built there. Don't like it? Buy it off of me for the price I state.
- philosopher1234 4y agoBoo hoo, mark andressen the billionaire experiences minor inconvenience. Sometimes the government seizing private land is good.
- quantified 4y agoEvery nice town was a lot nicer in the past. Including Atherton. By that logic, he should tear his house down and give his land to his neighbors, making the town nicer.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jjulius 4y ago>They will MASSIVELY decrease our home values... Your net worth is $1.7 billion, you can fuck off with your concern about that one home of yours experiencing a dip in value. I realize this comment isn't in the typical spirit of an HN comment, but that's just gross.
- hotpotamus 4y agoDo you think he really cares about home values or that he would have to breathe the same air as the poors?
- genocidicbunny 4y agoGlib answer: yes. Slightly less glib -- I think it's more about allowing the precedent. Not so much about breathing the same air as the poors, but more about letting the poors think they should have any such opportunity to share their air.
- mansion7 4y agoTo be fair, even poor people don't like living around one another. That's why they move away as soon as they can afford it. That's why after realizing her sudden immense wealth, even Patrisse Cullors purchased her homes in Inglewood and a spacious ranch in Conyers, GA, instead of say Compton or Oakland.
- yazzku 4y agoWhy isn't it in the typical spirit? Fuck that guy and his pretentious ilk.
- strikelaserclaw 4y agoDon't his venture capital firm invest in garbage crypto companies? I seriously doubt this guy has any ethics at all.
- jollybean 4y agoNo, non-Atherton residents can 'f-off' with whatever their opinions are, unless it materially affects the community at large. The residents can have whatever kind of municipality they want. If they want to keep it quiet and not be Manhatten, it's their prerogative. Now - blocking the electrification of Caltrain - that - is actual NIMBYISM, because they're blocking needed infrastructure changes that don't likely hugely affect them. Those kinds of actions make it impossible to have High Speed Trains etc. etc.. But otherwise, there's plenty of land, people can go elsewhere, and tell Google they need to open an office in Morgan Hill because nobody can get to GHQ without spending 1/2 their salary just to survive.
- mstipetic 4y agoI really don’t understand this mindset, shouldn’t you stop caring about money at a certain point? So what if one of your houses decreases in value, you’re set for life. Is it some weird money obsession/disease?
- VectorLock 4y agoOnce you're in the tres commas club, the money disease is fatal.
- edmcnulty101 4y agoMight be reduced to driving a car with doors that open sideways.
- davidw 4y agoIf you're fighting for market share with other companies... IDK, fair enough. If you're trying to stop people with way less money from having a place to live, that's just gross. And it's false in any case according to some of the research I've seen. It's housing. For people. Not a sewage facility.
- fasthands9 4y agoI am a huge YIMBY but pretty sure he is stating arguments that he thinks will be compelling to the rest of the voters in his town. Most people their prob have net worths north of 10M - but entirely wrapped up in their property values. Solution is to just not give local towns such strict control. Otherwise there is truly no incentive to allow building like this
- quantified 4y agoI'm doubtful of both of those points. Perhaps I've not seen the part of town where the merely very affluent live, but there's not that much of the town to see. I'd guess that 25% or less of their wealth is in their Atherton properties.
- spaetzleesser 4y ago
- amluto 4y agoThis has always seemed like a very weak argument, almost like a straw man that people believe in for some reason. Even intuitively, why would one expect that reducing land use restrictions would devalue land? But let’s try actual, if low quality, numbers: Houses near Atherton, in Menlo Park, seem to sell for around $500k-$1M per 1000 sq ft of lot size. That’s $500 - $1000 per sq ft lot. Houses in Atherton, supposed home of very expensive homes, seem to sell for around $10M per acre of lot. (Yes, Atherton is so fancy that it uses different units in Zillow!). That’s about $230 per sq ft of land. In other words, Menlo Park (not exactly a paragon of high density and unrestricted land use) has 2x-4x the land value per unit area of Atherton. So those NIMBYs who actually want to extract dollar value from their property should support less restrictive land use! edit: of course this is the value of random houses plus their lots. I expect the effect would be more pronounced if the houses were removed — those Atherton houses tend to be quite fancy.
- metadat 4y agoIf it were really about money, you'd be correct. It's really about control, though. The whole point of Atherton is privacy- the property owners don't want other living human beings within earshot.
- amluto 4y ago…which one can achieve fairly well by owning a huge piece of land and building in the middle of it. In any case, this may be what Andreesen is thinking, but it’s not what he wrote.
- ac29 4y ago> Houses in Atherton, supposed home of very expensive homes, seem to sell for around $10M per acre of lot. (Yes, Atherton is so fancy that it uses different units in Zillow!). That’s about $230 per sq ft of land. It should be noted that the zoning rules in Atherton require a minimum lot size of 1 Acre per home. Thinking of it in terms of square feet lets you compare it to nearby towns somewhat, but misses that building say two houses per acre (1/2 acre lots) is illegal there.
- jollybean 4y agoIt's not remotely hypocritical. He lives in a quiet neighbourhood and he likely moved there for that reason. The community wants to keep it that way. It's (almost) entirely none of your/my/our business otherwise. The anti-NIMBYism issue is an irrational hysteria ... pushing everyone to think that the moment an area becomes popular, it must be turned into New York or Hong Kong. And FYI are those places affordable? There's tons of land in the US, it's time for stupid cities to organize themselves and not have antiquated/disjoint transport systems i.e. Caltrain/Bart. If the 'Valley' were 'intelligent' they'd have a train from Santa Rosa to Morgan Hill in 1 hour. What is 'very hypocritical' is that in Atherton they apparently refused the infrastructure changes necessary to electrify the CalTrain. Now that - is terrible. I'd imagine this would mean a modicum of change / trouble, for quite an important common/civic benefit. Andreesen should be pushing for that electrification change, and probably other forms of change, and finally not be ALL CAPS in emails like a giant turkey. I mean, it evokes images of an angry giant bald man smashing his fists on the table. I mean, Marc, chill. Just make your point ...
- brailsafe 4y ago> There's tons of land in the US, it's time for stupid cities to organize themselves and not have antiquated/disjoint transport systems i.e. Caltrain/Bart. how about cars