4 ms·

This is a terrible idea. The SF YIMBY movement is completely out of touch with the spirit of SF. I say this as a native San Franciscan.

tqi 3y ago
Who gets to decide what is or isn't the spirit of SF?
- bifrost 3y ago
  People who live here, and I mean actually live here, not ones that just pop in for a few years and decide it needs to change. YIMBYism is very misguided in SF.
  - pcwalton 3y ago
    I've lived in SF for years as a residential property owner, in the Bay Area for over a decade, and I say bring on the development. Views on this issue are not as one-sided as you think. (Also, the idea that you need to have lived here for some arbitrary tenure to vote on issues is gross.)
    - bifrost 3y ago
      Its only gross if you think being a multi-generational stakeholder is wrong.
      - tqi 3y ago
        It's not wrong, but making it a requirement for one's opinion to be taken seriously is pretty gross. For one, it actively favors people with money, since they are the only ones who can afford to establish new multi-generation bonafides. Also, lest we forget, this city's not too distant past includes long periods of redlining and the displacement of Japanese American residents from the homes. In other words, it's nice that your family was able to make it work here, and I genuinely think that it is an important perspective to consider, but maybe keep in mind that just because others weren't / aren't as fortunate doesn't mean they shouldn't have an equal claim to shaping the city's future.
        bifrost 3y ago
        Tenure is absolutely something that should be considered. A person transient to an area shouldn't be allowed to uproot generations of tradition. All of those past issues are gone as of 70-40 years ago, harping about them is orthogonal. I know plenty of people who're poor who've managed to stick it out as well, or they left for greener pastures and are happy with those choices. And as I've said elsewhere - building is fine, but this building is ridiculous.
        tqi 3y ago
        For one, 70-40 years ago is 2 to 4 generations, so I do think it's still relevant to think about. Also that history shaped what SF became, so new people wanting make changes doesn't seem unreasonable. For another, the fact that some people are able to make it work doesn't change the fact that the policies you and your friends advocate for actively make it harder for people to "stick it out." Which is a convenient way to limit who gets a say in what this city becomes.
- carapace 3y ago
  Willie Brown. - - - - Heh, seriously though, FWIW, as someone who grew up here and was, until recently, against what I called at the time the Manhattan-ization of San Francisco, the argument that did the most to change my mind about growth was a quick review of the history of the place: In a nutshell: Ohlone, Spanish, 49ers, ..., Beatniks, Hippies, ..., Tech Bros. In other words, locals getting displaced by incoming waves of invaders is more-or-less the history of San Francisco, from founding to the present day. That, combined with the simple fact that I'll never realistically be able to afford to buy a home in my home town (despite having a decent career programming computers), convinced me that we should try to build ridiculous amounts of housing here. Like enough to put a serious dent in the housing shortage on a national scale, eh? Let's build hundreds of thousands of new units! I don't know how the logistics would work out, but I bet we could figure it out.
  - bifrost 3y ago
    The history is mostly irrelevant to building here, and you forgot the Yuppies then the Wuppies :) I should also point out that 20 year high interest rates are bringing down the prices of homes so you may be able to buy one here shortly. Yes, we are probably 50-60k units behind where we should be, but that doesn't mean we should build them without intelligence. Building along underground transit lines should be the primary goal because thats where its the most sustainable AND where its most likely to fix our urban blight brought on by the last 3 years of "stuff". The city's budget does need new taxpayers but putting folks all the way out by the ocean is truly a bad idea and a way to create pain.
    - carapace 3y ago
      > The history is mostly irrelevant to building here It's relevant to getting the current residents to recognize that they're not the ultimate endpoint to the history of the San Francisco peninsula, eh? At least, that's what it did for me. :) > you forgot the Yuppies then the Wuppies :) It's true. That '...' between the 49ers and the Beatniks elided a lot too, eh? > Yes, we are probably 50-60k units behind where we should be, but that doesn't mean we should build them without intelligence. Building along underground transit lines should be the primary goal because thats where its the most sustainable AND where its most likely to fix our urban blight brought on by the last 3 years of "stuff". > The city's budget does need new taxpayers but putting folks all the way out by the ocean is truly a bad idea and a way to create pain. I agree with you. Well said! Cheers
nostrademons 3y ago
Arguably, the SF YIMBY movement is very much in touch with the spirit of SF and they find it problematic. Understanding something is not the same as liking or agreeing with it.
- bifrost 3y ago
  Exactly. They should take their YIMBYism somewhere else. Maybe like Oakland. Oakland is permitting more buildings than SF but the problem is that Oakland has a huge crime and governance issue, even worse than SF.
  - Redoubts 3y ago
    Every municipality in the bay wants it “somewhere else”, that’s why municipalities are losing discretion to say No.

tqi 3y ago

Who gets to decide what is or isn't the spirit of SF?

bifrost 3y ago
People who live here, and I mean actually live here, not ones that just pop in for a few years and decide it needs to change. YIMBYism is very misguided in SF.
- pcwalton 3y ago
  I've lived in SF for years as a residential property owner, in the Bay Area for over a decade, and I say bring on the development. Views on this issue are not as one-sided as you think. (Also, the idea that you need to have lived here for some arbitrary tenure to vote on issues is gross.)
  - bifrost 3y ago
    Its only gross if you think being a multi-generational stakeholder is wrong.
    - tqi 3y ago
      It's not wrong, but making it a requirement for one's opinion to be taken seriously is pretty gross. For one, it actively favors people with money, since they are the only ones who can afford to establish new multi-generation bonafides. Also, lest we forget, this city's not too distant past includes long periods of redlining and the displacement of Japanese American residents from the homes. In other words, it's nice that your family was able to make it work here, and I genuinely think that it is an important perspective to consider, but maybe keep in mind that just because others weren't / aren't as fortunate doesn't mean they shouldn't have an equal claim to shaping the city's future.
      - bifrost 3y ago
        Tenure is absolutely something that should be considered. A person transient to an area shouldn't be allowed to uproot generations of tradition. All of those past issues are gone as of 70-40 years ago, harping about them is orthogonal. I know plenty of people who're poor who've managed to stick it out as well, or they left for greener pastures and are happy with those choices. And as I've said elsewhere - building is fine, but this building is ridiculous.
        tqi 3y ago
        For one, 70-40 years ago is 2 to 4 generations, so I do think it's still relevant to think about. Also that history shaped what SF became, so new people wanting make changes doesn't seem unreasonable. For another, the fact that some people are able to make it work doesn't change the fact that the policies you and your friends advocate for actively make it harder for people to "stick it out." Which is a convenient way to limit who gets a say in what this city becomes.
carapace 3y ago
Willie Brown. - - - - Heh, seriously though, FWIW, as someone who grew up here and was, until recently, against what I called at the time the Manhattan-ization of San Francisco, the argument that did the most to change my mind about growth was a quick review of the history of the place: In a nutshell: Ohlone, Spanish, 49ers, ..., Beatniks, Hippies, ..., Tech Bros. In other words, locals getting displaced by incoming waves of invaders is more-or-less the history of San Francisco, from founding to the present day. That, combined with the simple fact that I'll never realistically be able to afford to buy a home in my home town (despite having a decent career programming computers), convinced me that we should try to build ridiculous amounts of housing here. Like enough to put a serious dent in the housing shortage on a national scale, eh? Let's build hundreds of thousands of new units! I don't know how the logistics would work out, but I bet we could figure it out.
- bifrost 3y ago
  The history is mostly irrelevant to building here, and you forgot the Yuppies then the Wuppies :) I should also point out that 20 year high interest rates are bringing down the prices of homes so you may be able to buy one here shortly. Yes, we are probably 50-60k units behind where we should be, but that doesn't mean we should build them without intelligence. Building along underground transit lines should be the primary goal because thats where its the most sustainable AND where its most likely to fix our urban blight brought on by the last 3 years of "stuff". The city's budget does need new taxpayers but putting folks all the way out by the ocean is truly a bad idea and a way to create pain.
  - carapace 3y ago
    > The history is mostly irrelevant to building here It's relevant to getting the current residents to recognize that they're not the ultimate endpoint to the history of the San Francisco peninsula, eh? At least, that's what it did for me. :) > you forgot the Yuppies then the Wuppies :) It's true. That '...' between the 49ers and the Beatniks elided a lot too, eh? > Yes, we are probably 50-60k units behind where we should be, but that doesn't mean we should build them without intelligence. Building along underground transit lines should be the primary goal because thats where its the most sustainable AND where its most likely to fix our urban blight brought on by the last 3 years of "stuff". > The city's budget does need new taxpayers but putting folks all the way out by the ocean is truly a bad idea and a way to create pain. I agree with you. Well said! Cheers

nostrademons 3y ago

Arguably, the SF YIMBY movement is very much in touch with the spirit of SF and they find it problematic. Understanding something is not the same as liking or agreeing with it.

bifrost 3y ago
Exactly. They should take their YIMBYism somewhere else. Maybe like Oakland. Oakland is permitting more buildings than SF but the problem is that Oakland has a huge crime and governance issue, even worse than SF.
- Redoubts 3y ago
  Every municipality in the bay wants it “somewhere else”, that’s why municipalities are losing discretion to say No.