6 ms·

Or just honesty. I frankly don’t want housing the kinds of people who can’t afford houses anywhere near me. I don’t say this publicly, but the council candidat

Or just honesty. I frankly don’t want housing the kinds of people who can’t afford houses anywhere near me. I don’t say this publicly, but the council candidate who “protects home values” has my vote. I agree housing affordability is an important problem. I am not willing to have so much as ruffians in the nearby grocery store to fix it though.

jakeinspace 4y ago
What a sad frightened person you must be.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  Their real name must be Poe Slaw.
- throwawaysleep 4y ago
  - fumar 4y ago
  - qwerpy 4y ago
    I concur. I'd much rather deal with rich people problems (overzealous HOAs, ostentatious sports cars, being judged when I don't have an immaculate lawn) than the ones you describe. Online discourse is heavily biased against openly saying these things, but as we can see, apparently people quietly believe it nonetheless.
  - mikeyouse 4y ago
    They were talking about allowing the construction of ADU's to accommodate "low income" people per the RHNA - Low Income in San Mateo county is a 2-person household making $117k/year or a family of 4 earning $146k/year. I don't think you need to worry about pee on the sidewalks and "smoking". https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/income-limits/state-and-federal-income-limits/docs/income-limits-2021.pdf https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/income-limits/state-an...
- qwerpy 4y ago
  As a parent I also prioritize cleanliness and low crime over pretty much anything else. The difference between Marc and I is that I don't pretend to not be a NIMBY. If this causes me to be labeled online as a sad frightened person, so be it.
  - computerdork 4y ago
    Can understand this, as I own a home in the East Bay, but I fight the urge to be a NIMBY, because I've come to realize, it's not good for the area in the long run. One of the main causes of our homeless problem is our high-housing cost. At least from what I've read, the Bay Area has such a high-level of homelessness because people who normally can afford apartments can't and are forced on to the streets. We have some of the highest housing costs in the world, and if prices keep going up, homelessness and crime will get worse and worse. We need to bring prices down (or at least keep them from going up like crazy as they have been) so that we can support a range of workers, from cooks and teachers to well-educated techies and business people. Just my two cents.
    - rootos 4y ago
      Or they can move to someplace they can afford?
      - paulryanrogers 4y ago
        Then who will do the lawn care, cook, and serve? Will they have to commute hours everyday to make coffee and clean floors? It's absurd. Communities are most healthy with a mix of income levels intermingled.
        midoridensha 4y ago
        >Then who will do the lawn care, cook, and serve? Will they have to commute hours everyday to make coffee and clean floors? Sure, why not? They can then charge a fortune for these services because of the commute time. And for restaurants and the like, they can simply charge extremely high prices to eat there, to pay for workers needing to commute so far. And if the wealthy people refuse to pay for that, the restaurants can just go out of business, and the wealthy people can just cook their own food at home. I don't really see the problem here, except that this wouldn't result in a healthy community, but it seems these wealthy assholes don't actually want healthy communities. So maybe the healthy communities should be elsewhere, and the wealthy NIMBYs can just live in their own enclave and cook their own food and clean their own floors.
kareemsabri 4y ago
The "affordable housing" in Atherton would likely be $2.5M townhomes. Dunno what sort of ruffians you think would be buying those.
- throwawaysleep 4y ago
  I am sure we are relative ruffians to wealthy people. Simply could be the difference between executives and entrepreneurs to whiny employee types like myself.
- quantified 4y ago
  If the home values drop from 7MM to 6.5MM, it's not exactly let the riffraff in.
femiagbabiaka 4y ago
It's a good thing you don't own your neighborhood then I guess.
- throwawaysleep 4y ago
  I don’t need to own it. I just need my neighbours to agree and elect politicians who agree. NIMBYism doesn’t require ownership to succeed. Just that the existing population resist.
  - femiagbabiaka 4y ago
    With sparkling rhetoric like “don’t let the ruffians in the neighborhood” you are well on your way, godspeed
  - tartoran 4y ago
    There are regular employed people who are poor, prople who only male $100k per year and they don’t fit into your neighboorhood? Why not move out if you don’t like that part of the city evolve? Cities change over time, just accept that.
computerdork 4y ago
Just to give you another perspective, it seems like they're not building low-income housing, they're just building denser housing than is normal for the area ("multifamily overlay zones"). As someone who lives in the Bay Area, guessing that if they went ahead and these were actually built, the housing/rental prices of these units would still be ultra high. Yeah, housing is so bad here, they'd probably just to attract young tech workers or people with at least decent jobs.
- hindsightbias 4y ago
  The SF market alone was 100K >$750K 2Br units ten years ago. Unless someone supports paving Dolores Park, they’re a NIMBY.
  - xref 4y ago
    Why Dolores park specifically? Or is it all parks should be paved to create new units: Central Park in NY, Shinjuku Gyoen in Tokyo, etc
    - hindsightbias 4y ago
      It triggers all the FAANGr YIYBY tyoes.
- conductr 4y ago
  Who let that dual income family in? Income? Yuck. There goes the neighborhood /s
trhway 4y ago
>I frankly don’t want housing the kinds of people who can’t afford houses anywhere near me. how near is near? Should they be placed into a ghetto? or taken off the planet? >I am not willing to have so much as ruffians in the nearby grocery store to fix it though. To me it sounds like being poor is already a crime according to you.
- ekianjo 4y ago

jakeinspace 4y ago

What a sad frightened person you must be.

Apocryphon 4y ago
Their real name must be Poe Slaw.
throwawaysleep 4y ago
- fumar 4y ago
- qwerpy 4y ago
  I concur. I'd much rather deal with rich people problems (overzealous HOAs, ostentatious sports cars, being judged when I don't have an immaculate lawn) than the ones you describe. Online discourse is heavily biased against openly saying these things, but as we can see, apparently people quietly believe it nonetheless.
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  They were talking about allowing the construction of ADU's to accommodate "low income" people per the RHNA - Low Income in San Mateo county is a 2-person household making $117k/year or a family of 4 earning $146k/year. I don't think you need to worry about pee on the sidewalks and "smoking". https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/income-limits/state-and-federal-income-limits/docs/income-limits-2021.pdf https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/income-limits/state-an...
qwerpy 4y ago
As a parent I also prioritize cleanliness and low crime over pretty much anything else. The difference between Marc and I is that I don't pretend to not be a NIMBY. If this causes me to be labeled online as a sad frightened person, so be it.
- computerdork 4y ago
  Can understand this, as I own a home in the East Bay, but I fight the urge to be a NIMBY, because I've come to realize, it's not good for the area in the long run. One of the main causes of our homeless problem is our high-housing cost. At least from what I've read, the Bay Area has such a high-level of homelessness because people who normally can afford apartments can't and are forced on to the streets. We have some of the highest housing costs in the world, and if prices keep going up, homelessness and crime will get worse and worse. We need to bring prices down (or at least keep them from going up like crazy as they have been) so that we can support a range of workers, from cooks and teachers to well-educated techies and business people. Just my two cents.
  - rootos 4y ago
    Or they can move to someplace they can afford?
    - paulryanrogers 4y ago
      Then who will do the lawn care, cook, and serve? Will they have to commute hours everyday to make coffee and clean floors? It's absurd. Communities are most healthy with a mix of income levels intermingled.
      - midoridensha 4y ago
        >Then who will do the lawn care, cook, and serve? Will they have to commute hours everyday to make coffee and clean floors? Sure, why not? They can then charge a fortune for these services because of the commute time. And for restaurants and the like, they can simply charge extremely high prices to eat there, to pay for workers needing to commute so far. And if the wealthy people refuse to pay for that, the restaurants can just go out of business, and the wealthy people can just cook their own food at home. I don't really see the problem here, except that this wouldn't result in a healthy community, but it seems these wealthy assholes don't actually want healthy communities. So maybe the healthy communities should be elsewhere, and the wealthy NIMBYs can just live in their own enclave and cook their own food and clean their own floors.

kareemsabri 4y ago

The "affordable housing" in Atherton would likely be $2.5M townhomes. Dunno what sort of ruffians you think would be buying those.

throwawaysleep 4y ago
I am sure we are relative ruffians to wealthy people. Simply could be the difference between executives and entrepreneurs to whiny employee types like myself.
quantified 4y ago
If the home values drop from 7MM to 6.5MM, it's not exactly let the riffraff in.

femiagbabiaka 4y ago

It's a good thing you don't own your neighborhood then I guess.

throwawaysleep 4y ago
I don’t need to own it. I just need my neighbours to agree and elect politicians who agree. NIMBYism doesn’t require ownership to succeed. Just that the existing population resist.
- femiagbabiaka 4y ago
  With sparkling rhetoric like “don’t let the ruffians in the neighborhood” you are well on your way, godspeed
- tartoran 4y ago
  There are regular employed people who are poor, prople who only male $100k per year and they don’t fit into your neighboorhood? Why not move out if you don’t like that part of the city evolve? Cities change over time, just accept that.

computerdork 4y ago

Just to give you another perspective, it seems like they're not building low-income housing, they're just building denser housing than is normal for the area ("multifamily overlay zones"). As someone who lives in the Bay Area, guessing that if they went ahead and these were actually built, the housing/rental prices of these units would still be ultra high. Yeah, housing is so bad here, they'd probably just to attract young tech workers or people with at least decent jobs.

hindsightbias 4y ago
The SF market alone was 100K >$750K 2Br units ten years ago. Unless someone supports paving Dolores Park, they’re a NIMBY.
- xref 4y ago
  Why Dolores park specifically? Or is it all parks should be paved to create new units: Central Park in NY, Shinjuku Gyoen in Tokyo, etc
  - hindsightbias 4y ago
    It triggers all the FAANGr YIYBY tyoes.
conductr 4y ago
Who let that dual income family in? Income? Yuck. There goes the neighborhood /s

trhway 4y ago

>I frankly don’t want housing the kinds of people who can’t afford houses anywhere near me. how near is near? Should they be placed into a ghetto? or taken off the planet? >I am not willing to have so much as ruffians in the nearby grocery store to fix it though. To me it sounds like being poor is already a crime according to you.

ekianjo 4y ago