3 ms·

This is a labour union issue and not a prop 13 or even a NIMBY issue. https://sfstandard.com/housing-development/labor-unions-have-a-week-to-agree-on-state-hou

This is a labour union issue and not a prop 13 or even a NIMBY issue. https://sfstandard.com/housing-development/labor-unions-have-a-week-to-agree-on-state-housing-bills-can-they-do-it/ https://sfstandard.com/housing-development/labor-unions-have... Those commenting here don’t understand how labour unions in CA have the Senate and Assembly by the balls. As long as the public keeps focusing on imaginary enemies amongst themselves and we keep lobbing ‘prop 13’and ‘nimby’ balls at each other, we lose. Nobody here on HN is going to be able to live in the new high density housing. It is meant for affordable housing and to move vote banks from other counties. Oldest universal political trick from the books to stay in power. Who benefits from high density subsidized housing homes for those who can’t afford living in the most expensive cities in the state? How is it helping the homeless or the economically vulnerable? Who is being served here? There is a bigger picture. There are more powerful forces. They just want the voters fighting amongst ourselves while they decide our fate.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> is meant for affordable housing and to move vote banks from other counties We have this in New York. It's far from as cancerous as the situation in California. When Marc Andreessen is talking about building housing in California while screaming about it in his backyard, you have the poster child for the problem [1]. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-18/atherton-multifamily-homes-plan-draws-ire-from-andreessen https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-18/atherton-...
- jelliclesfarm 4y ago
  Cities should have capped populations for efficiency. There has to be high income, medium income and low income housing ratio to have a balanced and economically diverse population. We just have to build another city with great infrastructure and network it to other cities when we have an influx of population due to jobs or organic population growth. It’s like how they say.. When there is a surfeit of sardines, we buy more cans to fill..we don’t not overstuff the same limited number of already overstuffed sardines to deal with the abundance. Our schools, our public transport, our roads, our hospitals, our basic facilities are all over stretched because we keep stuffing the same cities with more and more people. In America, everyone deserves to live in sustainable housing. And high density isn’t sustainable. It is a cope when resources are limited and population surges. The demand for high density in the Bay Area is artificial and politically motivated. This will implode. Time will tell that I am right.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > high density isn’t sustainable On almost every measure, high-density housing is less energy and resource intensive. > cities should have capped populations for efficiency This is rationing. China is trying it. Agglomeration effects are real, so this will always turn into a political exercise around allocating people to more and less desirable places, and thereby pruning their opportunity set.
    - jelliclesfarm 4y ago
      Except it is not sustainable. There was a study that found that tall high density residential towers require less resources to build, but they consume more energy than suburban housing. Let us take water. California is a desert. Water is becoming more and more expensive. We are certainly rationing water per person by increasing density. The measure of ‘sustainability’ is here is to restrict consumption. China has a more sustainable rationing policy when it comes to high density because of their billion plus population. It doesn’t apply to America. Rationing in California is just out of spite and political clickbait because we insist on measures like housing the homeless in the overcrowded Bay Area. Meanwhile there is abundant water in the mid west. Are they less sustainable or living in less abundance because they don’t engage in high density sustainable philosophy? Some resources are fixed and at that point it’s a numbers game. A cake can be distributed amongst 10 people or between 100. Getting a sliver of cake instead of slice of cake is not sustainable. It is the very definition of rationing by mandate when high density becomes mandatory housing policy. It is also artificial and installed on purpose to manufacture wider and artificial housing affordability. As in: A tech worker drawing 200k cannot afford a home in the Bay Area. Because we want to build sustainable and affordable homes for minimum wage workers that the builder passes on to market rate home buyers in order to subsidize said affordable home. Sustainability doesn’t figure anywhere and is just greenwashing.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    > We just have to build another city with great infrastructure and network it to other cities when we have an influx of population due to jobs or organic population growth. Ah, the cyberpunk solution. https://cyberpunk.fandom.com/wiki/Night_City#Inception_(1990_-_1994) https://cyberpunk.fandom.com/wiki/Night_City#Inception_(1990...

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> is meant for affordable housing and to move vote banks from other counties We have this in New York. It's far from as cancerous as the situation in California. When Marc Andreessen is talking about building housing in California while screaming about it in his backyard, you have the poster child for the problem [1]. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-18/atherton-multifamily-homes-plan-draws-ire-from-andreessen https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-18/atherton-...

jelliclesfarm 4y ago
Cities should have capped populations for efficiency. There has to be high income, medium income and low income housing ratio to have a balanced and economically diverse population. We just have to build another city with great infrastructure and network it to other cities when we have an influx of population due to jobs or organic population growth. It’s like how they say.. When there is a surfeit of sardines, we buy more cans to fill..we don’t not overstuff the same limited number of already overstuffed sardines to deal with the abundance. Our schools, our public transport, our roads, our hospitals, our basic facilities are all over stretched because we keep stuffing the same cities with more and more people. In America, everyone deserves to live in sustainable housing. And high density isn’t sustainable. It is a cope when resources are limited and population surges. The demand for high density in the Bay Area is artificial and politically motivated. This will implode. Time will tell that I am right.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > high density isn’t sustainable On almost every measure, high-density housing is less energy and resource intensive. > cities should have capped populations for efficiency This is rationing. China is trying it. Agglomeration effects are real, so this will always turn into a political exercise around allocating people to more and less desirable places, and thereby pruning their opportunity set.
  - jelliclesfarm 4y ago
    Except it is not sustainable. There was a study that found that tall high density residential towers require less resources to build, but they consume more energy than suburban housing. Let us take water. California is a desert. Water is becoming more and more expensive. We are certainly rationing water per person by increasing density. The measure of ‘sustainability’ is here is to restrict consumption. China has a more sustainable rationing policy when it comes to high density because of their billion plus population. It doesn’t apply to America. Rationing in California is just out of spite and political clickbait because we insist on measures like housing the homeless in the overcrowded Bay Area. Meanwhile there is abundant water in the mid west. Are they less sustainable or living in less abundance because they don’t engage in high density sustainable philosophy? Some resources are fixed and at that point it’s a numbers game. A cake can be distributed amongst 10 people or between 100. Getting a sliver of cake instead of slice of cake is not sustainable. It is the very definition of rationing by mandate when high density becomes mandatory housing policy. It is also artificial and installed on purpose to manufacture wider and artificial housing affordability. As in: A tech worker drawing 200k cannot afford a home in the Bay Area. Because we want to build sustainable and affordable homes for minimum wage workers that the builder passes on to market rate home buyers in order to subsidize said affordable home. Sustainability doesn’t figure anywhere and is just greenwashing.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  > We just have to build another city with great infrastructure and network it to other cities when we have an influx of population due to jobs or organic population growth. Ah, the cyberpunk solution. https://cyberpunk.fandom.com/wiki/Night_City#Inception_(1990_-_1994) https://cyberpunk.fandom.com/wiki/Night_City#Inception_(1990...