4 ms·

> progressive The real question is, how many of them are actually progressive, and how many are just people using the right buzzwords? SF sure looks like a lot

> progressive The real question is, how many of them are actually progressive, and how many are just people using the right buzzwords? SF sure looks like a lot of the latter, given the chokehold that NIMBYism has over any and all new construction that might actually help with the city's cost-of-living issues.

jonhohle 3y ago
So despite the majority of major metro areas having sharp increases in violent and property crime and homelessness while being run by people who claim to be progressive, those aren’t real progressives? It’s not that progressive policies don’t work and make cities worse for most people?
- peter422 3y ago
  SF's biggest problem is lack of housing, and SF's housing policies are among the most "conservative" (ie all about keeping the status quo) in the nation. A lot of "progressive" policies that people are worried about have little actual impact, especially when the price of housing is completely ridiculous and creates so many problems on its own.
  - pfannkuchen 3y ago
    Without building any more housing, SF could be a nice place (for those who can afford it) by simply strictly enforcing existing laws. The desire to not strictly enforce existing laws generally comes from a progressive leaning I believe? Basically, it is <some flavor of mean> to enforce the laws, because those breaking the laws were put in a bad situation by society? Which I think is the gist of a lot of progressive ideals (not asserting that they are wrong here).
    - peter422 3y ago
      Who is going to strictly enforce all the laws? The excess police officers that can't be hired because they can't afford to live in the city and don't want to commute into a city they don't care about to make less money than other nearby communities will pay them? Fewer than 25% of SF cops live in SF. It all comes back to housing. If you have a desirable place, people want to live there, and at some point if you don't keep up with growth then your city starts to lose the really important people that kept it running (nurses, teachers, police officers, etc). It's not like SF almost kept up with growth... They didn't try and fell so far behind in a deliberate attempt to keep a status quo, which completely led to the current disaster.
      - pfannkuchen 3y ago
        Sorry if my point wasn’t clear. I am saying that conceptually some of the other problems people are discussing aren’t strictly caused by a housing shortage. The path we took from a prior “okay” state to the current “not okay” state may have been rooted in a lack of housing, but not all paths back to an “okay” state necessarily require that we solve the housing problem. Asserting that e.g. people pooping in the street is caused strictly by expensive housing would require some mental gymnastics IMO, there are simpler explanations and simpler ways out, without blocking on solving the expensive housing problem. If for example we ended up with a nice peaceful city but the police budget was really really high (so they could live locally), that would be a much less hairy problem than we have today I think. Nice peaceful city tends to generate more tax revenue also.
        travisjungroth 3y ago
        Seems unfair to call a suggestion to fix the main cause of many problems “mental gymnastics”. Raising police salaries and lowering housing costs are both about making things more affordable, just from different ends.
        pfannkuchen 3y ago
        That isn’t what I was calling mental gymnastics. > Asserting that e.g. people pooping in the street is caused strictly by expensive housing would require some mental gymnastics Key word being strictly, i.e. expensive housing is the cause of street pooping, and there is ultimately no other way to prevent street pooping other than to reduce housing costs broadly. Raising police salaries is obviously a much easier problem to solve, right? It is something that is already under government control and it can be modeled using a simple spreadsheet. Housing cost on the other hand is not really possible to model accurately, the system is too complex and has too many inputs.
        peter422 3y ago
        The starting salary for an SF police officer is over 100k. At some point money isn't the only issue. Also like any other job, the best way to get good police officers is to have lots of competition. If you are desperate for staffing, you aren't getting the best.
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    I am amused when people think conservatism is about keeping the status quo. That would mean if they suddenly came into power in SF they would fight to keep the doom loop stabilized.
- travisjungroth 3y ago
  I see what you’re getting at, calling out a No True Scotsman. It’s worth remembering that some people aren’t actually Scotsmen. SF is essentially a single party system. Everyone has to run Democrat, even the conservatives. It continues down to liberal hypocrisy in the citizenry, which mirrors the conservative hypocrisy. Every abortion is immoral except the one I need, everyone deserves affordable housing except in my neighborhood. The end-to-end government in SF, which would include the state and federal, is not meaningfully progressive. It’s extremely progressive on visible, local issues. But it’s to such a point it’s absurd. This is how you end up with a very conservative tax system while petty property crime is de facto legal.
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
Is there a difference worth talking about? People who claim to be progressive are so because to claim otherwise would invite significant social stigma. It's all lip service. Sure, if we were talking 15 yr olds, maybe those are true believers... but they don't tend to get elected to city councils and zoning boards.
rcme 3y ago
NIBYism always comes up when talking about the cost-of-living crisis. Did you know just 12 entities own a majority of Bay Area real estate [0]? Do you really think building more units is going to stop those entities from continuing their oligopoly on residential real estate in the area? But yea, I'm sure it's those damn people who like their backyard causing this crisis!!! In my opinion, this anti-NIMBY push is likely supported by these megalithic property owners. They’ve run out of units to buy and can no longer grow their cash flow. The solution to this problem is to take property from existing property owners. Pretty much all legislation in this countries happens with support or approval from corporate interests. It would not surprise me at all to find out corporate interests were the driving force that is compelling the state to override local zoning ordinances. Another thing to consider is, why is the proposed solution forcing local governments to give up their zoning rights? Why don’t we force real estate investors to give up some of their units so people have a place to live? How can some people own thousands of units before others have even one? 0: https://www.fastcompany.com/90792419/12-mega-landlords-own-majority-of-the-san-francisco-bay-area https://www.fastcompany.com/90792419/12-mega-landlords-own-m...
- grandmczeb 3y ago
  > the properties owned by those 12 real estate giants and Veritas represent a fraction (0.3%) of the data. From the linked SF Chronicle article.
  - rcme 3y ago
    I don’t see that in the linked article: https://archive.is/fZntY https://archive.is/fZntY
    - grandmczeb 3y ago
      https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2022/sf-bay-area-property-map/ https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2022/sf-bay-area-proper... Third paragraph. But also, from your link “we’re confident this list of 12 includes some of the region’s major power players in residential real estate, housing tens of thousands of families in nearly 7,000 assessor-defined properties from San Jose to Santa Rosa”. 7k / 2.3M = 0.3%

jonhohle 3y ago

So despite the majority of major metro areas having sharp increases in violent and property crime and homelessness while being run by people who claim to be progressive, those aren’t real progressives? It’s not that progressive policies don’t work and make cities worse for most people?

peter422 3y ago
SF's biggest problem is lack of housing, and SF's housing policies are among the most "conservative" (ie all about keeping the status quo) in the nation. A lot of "progressive" policies that people are worried about have little actual impact, especially when the price of housing is completely ridiculous and creates so many problems on its own.
- pfannkuchen 3y ago
  Without building any more housing, SF could be a nice place (for those who can afford it) by simply strictly enforcing existing laws. The desire to not strictly enforce existing laws generally comes from a progressive leaning I believe? Basically, it is <some flavor of mean> to enforce the laws, because those breaking the laws were put in a bad situation by society? Which I think is the gist of a lot of progressive ideals (not asserting that they are wrong here).
  - peter422 3y ago
    Who is going to strictly enforce all the laws? The excess police officers that can't be hired because they can't afford to live in the city and don't want to commute into a city they don't care about to make less money than other nearby communities will pay them? Fewer than 25% of SF cops live in SF. It all comes back to housing. If you have a desirable place, people want to live there, and at some point if you don't keep up with growth then your city starts to lose the really important people that kept it running (nurses, teachers, police officers, etc). It's not like SF almost kept up with growth... They didn't try and fell so far behind in a deliberate attempt to keep a status quo, which completely led to the current disaster.
    - pfannkuchen 3y ago
      Sorry if my point wasn’t clear. I am saying that conceptually some of the other problems people are discussing aren’t strictly caused by a housing shortage. The path we took from a prior “okay” state to the current “not okay” state may have been rooted in a lack of housing, but not all paths back to an “okay” state necessarily require that we solve the housing problem. Asserting that e.g. people pooping in the street is caused strictly by expensive housing would require some mental gymnastics IMO, there are simpler explanations and simpler ways out, without blocking on solving the expensive housing problem. If for example we ended up with a nice peaceful city but the police budget was really really high (so they could live locally), that would be a much less hairy problem than we have today I think. Nice peaceful city tends to generate more tax revenue also.
      - travisjungroth 3y ago
        Seems unfair to call a suggestion to fix the main cause of many problems “mental gymnastics”. Raising police salaries and lowering housing costs are both about making things more affordable, just from different ends.
        pfannkuchen 3y ago
        That isn’t what I was calling mental gymnastics. > Asserting that e.g. people pooping in the street is caused strictly by expensive housing would require some mental gymnastics Key word being strictly, i.e. expensive housing is the cause of street pooping, and there is ultimately no other way to prevent street pooping other than to reduce housing costs broadly. Raising police salaries is obviously a much easier problem to solve, right? It is something that is already under government control and it can be modeled using a simple spreadsheet. Housing cost on the other hand is not really possible to model accurately, the system is too complex and has too many inputs.
        peter422 3y ago
        The starting salary for an SF police officer is over 100k. At some point money isn't the only issue. Also like any other job, the best way to get good police officers is to have lots of competition. If you are desperate for staffing, you aren't getting the best.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  I am amused when people think conservatism is about keeping the status quo. That would mean if they suddenly came into power in SF they would fight to keep the doom loop stabilized.
travisjungroth 3y ago
I see what you’re getting at, calling out a No True Scotsman. It’s worth remembering that some people aren’t actually Scotsmen. SF is essentially a single party system. Everyone has to run Democrat, even the conservatives. It continues down to liberal hypocrisy in the citizenry, which mirrors the conservative hypocrisy. Every abortion is immoral except the one I need, everyone deserves affordable housing except in my neighborhood. The end-to-end government in SF, which would include the state and federal, is not meaningfully progressive. It’s extremely progressive on visible, local issues. But it’s to such a point it’s absurd. This is how you end up with a very conservative tax system while petty property crime is de facto legal.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

Is there a difference worth talking about? People who claim to be progressive are so because to claim otherwise would invite significant social stigma. It's all lip service. Sure, if we were talking 15 yr olds, maybe those are true believers... but they don't tend to get elected to city councils and zoning boards.

rcme 3y ago

NIBYism always comes up when talking about the cost-of-living crisis. Did you know just 12 entities own a majority of Bay Area real estate [0]? Do you really think building more units is going to stop those entities from continuing their oligopoly on residential real estate in the area? But yea, I'm sure it's those damn people who like their backyard causing this crisis!!! In my opinion, this anti-NIMBY push is likely supported by these megalithic property owners. They’ve run out of units to buy and can no longer grow their cash flow. The solution to this problem is to take property from existing property owners. Pretty much all legislation in this countries happens with support or approval from corporate interests. It would not surprise me at all to find out corporate interests were the driving force that is compelling the state to override local zoning ordinances. Another thing to consider is, why is the proposed solution forcing local governments to give up their zoning rights? Why don’t we force real estate investors to give up some of their units so people have a place to live? How can some people own thousands of units before others have even one? 0: https://www.fastcompany.com/90792419/12-mega-landlords-own-majority-of-the-san-francisco-bay-area https://www.fastcompany.com/90792419/12-mega-landlords-own-m...

grandmczeb 3y ago
> the properties owned by those 12 real estate giants and Veritas represent a fraction (0.3%) of the data. From the linked SF Chronicle article.
- rcme 3y ago
  I don’t see that in the linked article: https://archive.is/fZntY https://archive.is/fZntY
  - grandmczeb 3y ago
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2022/sf-bay-area-property-map/ https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2022/sf-bay-area-proper... Third paragraph. But also, from your link “we’re confident this list of 12 includes some of the region’s major power players in residential real estate, housing tens of thousands of families in nearly 7,000 assessor-defined properties from San Jose to Santa Rosa”. 7k / 2.3M = 0.3%