5 ms·

I dont understand the problem. The Bay Area already has 8 million people. Its busy already and water supply is limited. The residents have voted and agreed to l

by rr888 4y ago

I dont understand the problem. The Bay Area already has 8 million people. Its busy already and water supply is limited. The residents have voted and agreed to limit development, keep the city as it is. This is democracy in action. If you want development and/or high density living, move to other locations or NY or Texas or Florida.

betaby 4y ago
Well, it's not hard to understand. Let me give you an example. About 3 years ago government used eminent domain and demolished two rows of townhouses to expand a highway. 'residents have voted and agreed' is not a democracy example I'm afraid.
opportune 4y ago
I am a resident of SF and disagree with the current policy. The only way to fix it is for residents who care about development to convince others. Democracy only works if there is discourse, otherwise nothing would change Also, in SF we have more than enough water. Maybe you are thinking of Southern California more than 300 miles away?
- erik_seaberg 4y ago
  They announced “To help extend our water supplies, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission declared a Water Shortage Emergency in November 2021. The action calls for a 11% reduction in water use across our regional system.” https://sfpuc.org/learning/conserve-water/we-are-drought https://sfpuc.org/learning/conserve-water/we-are-drought
grahamplace 4y ago
> This is democracy in action One challenge in YIMBY-oriented organizing is that "future residents" who would benefit most from new developments have no political power to wield in order to get them approved — because they don't live there yet — because they can't, since there is not housing for them
- opportune 4y ago
  Yes, as someone in his mid 20s I am pissed that everyone before me kicked the can down the road long enough for this to become my problem. It’s not just SF, it’s a Bay Area/California/National problem - at varying levels of severity and impact. Of course nobody forces me to live in SF. But if I leave someone will just take my place - this isn’t just a housing problem, it’s also a mismatch in where jobs are relative to where housing is. My desk will get reassigned to someone else who will likely also live in SF (because we can afford it, but the people with families making my food can’t). The least we can do now is fix it forward and make sure it doesn’t get worse. Even for people like me and the hypothetical low wage worker with a family, the sooner we fix this the sooner we can reap the benefits.
  - rr888 4y ago
    "everyone before" you created America's state with the richest and largest population. It has the highest desity of people West of the Mississippi. If you want cheap housing move to Wisconsin and work remotely. If you want to live in the most desireable state in the world, dont complain people before you "messed things up".
    - opportune 4y ago
      Some of them created that, a whole lot more just did regular jobs and voted for things like neighborhood preservation or fixing property taxes when a property is exchanged. One reason I am in this position to begin with is that Bay Area municipalities approved huge office projects without increasing housing in tandem. Those policies were explicitly to attract people like me - high income office workers who would generate payroll and sales taxes while stimulating the local economy as I buy goods and services, without a large net increase in public expenditures since the static housing supply also keeps the population relatively static. I have no reservations in calling that out as a mistake. I understand the rationale behind those decisions and if I hadn’t seen what it led to now, I may have supported them. I can understand why people who aren’t affected because they are longtime homeowners, or who were affected and bought in at high prices, really don’t want to rock the boat. But those policies are reaching their breaking point and materially affecting people’s lives negatively. Because of high housing prices many people are living in smaller/older units, crammed in with more people than they’d prefer, or living very far away from their job. Besides high housing prices this has plenty of other negative effects like bad traffic, social spending on people with what would be middle incomes in the rest of the country, and definitely a contributor to homelessness (something like half of which have jobs and live in unstable environments like their cars - not talking about the addicts at 7th and Market). It’s systemic - you can rationalize the pain by saying any individual could move away if they don’t like it, but that doesn’t change the imbalance in jobs relative to housing. Also, I can easily pay for as much housing as I want. But I’d like to stay here and have room for children, not deal with high priced everywhere because rent is too high and it’s too hard to find low skill workers, and not see my neighbors suffer. If you don’t like my presence in this area why don’t you move?
ch4s3 4y ago
> Its busy already and water supply Only 10% of California's water use is urban/residential. > The residents have voted and agreed to limit development, keep the city as it is In violation of state law, put in place by a larger number of state voters. > If you want development and/or high density living, move to other locations or NY or Texas or Florida. People go where the jobs are.
- rr888 4y ago
  > People go where the jobs are. The jobs go where the people are. If companies can't find people in SF because no one can afford to live there they'll move.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    Maybe. But a lot of companies open offices where their owners want to live, near related businesses, near relevant universities, and so on. They may yet leave. But if so, what will SF have accomplished? Becoming Aspen on the bay?
  - cheriot 4y ago
    Having office capacity for more people than housing has capacity for is the problem.
braingenious 4y ago
…and this is another group of citizens organizing and advocating for a different outcome on future votes. It is democracy in action. If you don’t like citizens organizing and advocating for democratic outcomes in the bay area, you can move to NY or Texas or Florida, where democratic decisions do not impact the bay area. (Do you see how the “just move away” rhetoric breaks down under a little bit of scrutiny?)
chizhik-pyzhik 4y ago
Stopping development doesn't really 'keep the city as it is', though. There will continue to be greater demand, which will make rents higher, which will create more poverty.
- notch656a 4y ago
  >which will make rents higher, which will create more poverty. At some point though don't rents become high enough it's almost a 'luxury' to live there? What proportion of people paying say $15k/month in rent are in poverty? If the tyranny of the majority decide they want SF to be an ultra-rich enclave I'm trying to imagine how that can even be stopped, regardless. There's no constitutional right to free-market housing. IMO the 51% of best situated home/property owners will always have the incentive to impose their tyranny on others, and if they flush out the 49% due to elevated cost and repeat this iteratively you end up with an ever-concentrated hyper-wealthy enclave. That kind of self-reinforcing loop appears to be what SF is getting locked into.
JamesBarney 4y ago
And other people want to expand development so that people of all socioeconomic classes can live there not just the ultra-rich.
oblio 4y ago
The Bay Area is extremely wealthy and on paper should be a pinnacle of human achievement. Besides what the other comments are saying about residential water usage being a non factor, I'll just point out a competitor: Randstad. For those not aware, Randtad is the Amsterdam metro area. Ranstad has as many people as the Bay Area in half the space, so double density (to your "the Bay Area is full" bit). Except for techbros and probably a few other really small population groups, and unfortunately also except for the weather (the Bay Area has better weather), Randstad completely mops the floor with the Bay Area in terms of livability.
- rr888 4y ago
  I'm not sure what you're trying to say about the Netherlands. Actually I have a lot of family in towns around Amsterdam. Nimby rules are much higher than Bay Area, development is impossible in most of the land which is why there are big green belts and low density villages. And it rains regularly so no shortage of water.
  - oblio 4y ago
    The other comments have just said that the water shortage is not caused by people living there, it's due to agriculture and industry. Nothing to do with cities. What I'm saying is that for how much money there is in the Bay Area, it is comparatively crap to other top metro areas around the world. Is there even a city from the Bay Area in the top most liveable cities in the world?
    - rr888 4y ago
      100 years ago the population of California was 3.4 mil vs 6.7 mil in the Netherlands. Today California has 40 mil vs 17 mil. The problem is not "too many restrictions on development" its too much development, which has ruined the quality of life. You want to add more people? How many more?
      - oblio 4y ago
        The Netherlands is about 43k sqkm. California is 430k sqkm. You do the math :-) It's bad development, not development itself. Car centric, bad public transport, low population densities in cities, etc.

by rr888 4y ago

betaby 4y ago

Well, it's not hard to understand. Let me give you an example. About 3 years ago government used eminent domain and demolished two rows of townhouses to expand a highway. 'residents have voted and agreed' is not a democracy example I'm afraid.

opportune 4y ago

I am a resident of SF and disagree with the current policy. The only way to fix it is for residents who care about development to convince others. Democracy only works if there is discourse, otherwise nothing would change Also, in SF we have more than enough water. Maybe you are thinking of Southern California more than 300 miles away?

erik_seaberg 4y ago
They announced “To help extend our water supplies, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission declared a Water Shortage Emergency in November 2021. The action calls for a 11% reduction in water use across our regional system.” https://sfpuc.org/learning/conserve-water/we-are-drought https://sfpuc.org/learning/conserve-water/we-are-drought

grahamplace 4y ago

> This is democracy in action One challenge in YIMBY-oriented organizing is that "future residents" who would benefit most from new developments have no political power to wield in order to get them approved — because they don't live there yet — because they can't, since there is not housing for them

opportune 4y ago
Yes, as someone in his mid 20s I am pissed that everyone before me kicked the can down the road long enough for this to become my problem. It’s not just SF, it’s a Bay Area/California/National problem - at varying levels of severity and impact. Of course nobody forces me to live in SF. But if I leave someone will just take my place - this isn’t just a housing problem, it’s also a mismatch in where jobs are relative to where housing is. My desk will get reassigned to someone else who will likely also live in SF (because we can afford it, but the people with families making my food can’t). The least we can do now is fix it forward and make sure it doesn’t get worse. Even for people like me and the hypothetical low wage worker with a family, the sooner we fix this the sooner we can reap the benefits.
- rr888 4y ago
  "everyone before" you created America's state with the richest and largest population. It has the highest desity of people West of the Mississippi. If you want cheap housing move to Wisconsin and work remotely. If you want to live in the most desireable state in the world, dont complain people before you "messed things up".
  - opportune 4y ago
    Some of them created that, a whole lot more just did regular jobs and voted for things like neighborhood preservation or fixing property taxes when a property is exchanged. One reason I am in this position to begin with is that Bay Area municipalities approved huge office projects without increasing housing in tandem. Those policies were explicitly to attract people like me - high income office workers who would generate payroll and sales taxes while stimulating the local economy as I buy goods and services, without a large net increase in public expenditures since the static housing supply also keeps the population relatively static. I have no reservations in calling that out as a mistake. I understand the rationale behind those decisions and if I hadn’t seen what it led to now, I may have supported them. I can understand why people who aren’t affected because they are longtime homeowners, or who were affected and bought in at high prices, really don’t want to rock the boat. But those policies are reaching their breaking point and materially affecting people’s lives negatively. Because of high housing prices many people are living in smaller/older units, crammed in with more people than they’d prefer, or living very far away from their job. Besides high housing prices this has plenty of other negative effects like bad traffic, social spending on people with what would be middle incomes in the rest of the country, and definitely a contributor to homelessness (something like half of which have jobs and live in unstable environments like their cars - not talking about the addicts at 7th and Market). It’s systemic - you can rationalize the pain by saying any individual could move away if they don’t like it, but that doesn’t change the imbalance in jobs relative to housing. Also, I can easily pay for as much housing as I want. But I’d like to stay here and have room for children, not deal with high priced everywhere because rent is too high and it’s too hard to find low skill workers, and not see my neighbors suffer. If you don’t like my presence in this area why don’t you move?

ch4s3 4y ago

> Its busy already and water supply Only 10% of California's water use is urban/residential. > The residents have voted and agreed to limit development, keep the city as it is In violation of state law, put in place by a larger number of state voters. > If you want development and/or high density living, move to other locations or NY or Texas or Florida. People go where the jobs are.

rr888 4y ago
> People go where the jobs are. The jobs go where the people are. If companies can't find people in SF because no one can afford to live there they'll move.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  Maybe. But a lot of companies open offices where their owners want to live, near related businesses, near relevant universities, and so on. They may yet leave. But if so, what will SF have accomplished? Becoming Aspen on the bay?
- cheriot 4y ago
  Having office capacity for more people than housing has capacity for is the problem.

braingenious 4y ago

…and this is another group of citizens organizing and advocating for a different outcome on future votes. It is democracy in action. If you don’t like citizens organizing and advocating for democratic outcomes in the bay area, you can move to NY or Texas or Florida, where democratic decisions do not impact the bay area. (Do you see how the “just move away” rhetoric breaks down under a little bit of scrutiny?)

chizhik-pyzhik 4y ago

Stopping development doesn't really 'keep the city as it is', though. There will continue to be greater demand, which will make rents higher, which will create more poverty.

notch656a 4y ago
>which will make rents higher, which will create more poverty. At some point though don't rents become high enough it's almost a 'luxury' to live there? What proportion of people paying say $15k/month in rent are in poverty? If the tyranny of the majority decide they want SF to be an ultra-rich enclave I'm trying to imagine how that can even be stopped, regardless. There's no constitutional right to free-market housing. IMO the 51% of best situated home/property owners will always have the incentive to impose their tyranny on others, and if they flush out the 49% due to elevated cost and repeat this iteratively you end up with an ever-concentrated hyper-wealthy enclave. That kind of self-reinforcing loop appears to be what SF is getting locked into.

JamesBarney 4y ago

And other people want to expand development so that people of all socioeconomic classes can live there not just the ultra-rich.

oblio 4y ago

The Bay Area is extremely wealthy and on paper should be a pinnacle of human achievement. Besides what the other comments are saying about residential water usage being a non factor, I'll just point out a competitor: Randstad. For those not aware, Randtad is the Amsterdam metro area. Ranstad has as many people as the Bay Area in half the space, so double density (to your "the Bay Area is full" bit). Except for techbros and probably a few other really small population groups, and unfortunately also except for the weather (the Bay Area has better weather), Randstad completely mops the floor with the Bay Area in terms of livability.

rr888 4y ago
I'm not sure what you're trying to say about the Netherlands. Actually I have a lot of family in towns around Amsterdam. Nimby rules are much higher than Bay Area, development is impossible in most of the land which is why there are big green belts and low density villages. And it rains regularly so no shortage of water.
- oblio 4y ago
  The other comments have just said that the water shortage is not caused by people living there, it's due to agriculture and industry. Nothing to do with cities. What I'm saying is that for how much money there is in the Bay Area, it is comparatively crap to other top metro areas around the world. Is there even a city from the Bay Area in the top most liveable cities in the world?
  - rr888 4y ago
    100 years ago the population of California was 3.4 mil vs 6.7 mil in the Netherlands. Today California has 40 mil vs 17 mil. The problem is not "too many restrictions on development" its too much development, which has ruined the quality of life. You want to add more people? How many more?
    - oblio 4y ago
      The Netherlands is about 43k sqkm. California is 430k sqkm. You do the math :-) It's bad development, not development itself. Car centric, bad public transport, low population densities in cities, etc.