4 ms·
Why does SF have a responsibility to become more crowded? Shouldn’t a city be focused on doing what’s best for current homeowners - the ones that actually have
by tiahura 3y ago
Why does SF have a responsibility to become more crowded? Shouldn’t a city be focused on doing what’s best for current homeowners - the ones that actually have skin in the game. Why not move somewhere with a lower cost of living?
- ericjmorey 3y agoThe city has a responsibility to those that exist.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- presentation 3y agoTell that to the service staff who commute hours for their jobs in SF and have no shot at ever having a stable future because of the prohibitive cost. They should just move… and be unemployed, since that’s not a problem.
- tiahura 3y agoYeah. I’ve moved for a job. My parents did too. So did my grandparents.
- phendrenad2 3y agoMisery truly loves company
- matrix87 3y agoThey have a responsibility to the population as a whole, a majority of which rent their own housing
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- genocidicbunny 3y agoSF does not exist in a vacuum. How many people that work in SF don't live there? But they still contribute to the city's economy, to the companies that are based there and pay taxes to the city. Why shouldn't they get some say with what happens in SF, even if they don't live there? One of the points this article tries to make (somewhat badly) is that SF's housing policy affects other cities too.
- tiahura 3y agoWait, since my plumber pays taxes to the city, he should get a say in my neighborhood’s zoning? Or Amazon? No thanks.
- reducesuffering 3y agoWait, since you pay taxes to the city, you should get a say in my plot’s zoning? No thanks.
- genocidicbunny 3y agoWell, to some degree yes. Because in reality they already do have a say -- if your plumber is getting shafted in CoL and moves out of your area, you might need to find a new plumber. If most of the plumbers do that, the remaining ones will be able to charge higher prices to you. So eventually, you're either going to be paying your plumber a lot more, or not able to even hire one. It might not directly affect the zoning of your neighborhood, but it's going to affect the makeup and composition of it. And eventually, that will also affect the zoning.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- acchow 3y agoSF tried its strategy of allowing almost no housing to be built. That policy has been a failuer. And the city is supposed to serve its residents? You mean all those residents that moved away because they couldn't afford it anymore? Failing to build housing actually ultimately hurts the existing residents in the long term
- phendrenad2 3y agoTwo reasons: 1) it's bad long-term (the doom loop exists because no one can get skin in the game, and all of the houses are owned by people who see it as a physical 401k) 2) SF is damaging the region, by being a bad citizen and hoarding all of the investment that has been poured into it in the last 40 years. Think of it as a museum that suddenly jacks the price of admission up by 10000% because some billionaire bought it and wants it to be their private collection.
- mint2 3y ago>“ Shouldn’t a city be focused on doing what’s best for current homeowners” The landed gentry do have an outsized clout in city government don’t they. Anyway last I checked, The USA opening up voting beyond just landowners quite some time ago so the cities should have gotten the memo that’s residents not owning property need to be listened to too. SF basically ignores renters best interests when it comes to land use. I’m not landed gentry but I live there and would like more housing built - more of the missing middle.
- JambalayaJim 3y agoIt’s in its best interest. Do San Fransisco homeowners enjoy homelessness and the violence and crime that comes with it?