6 ms·

Sounds to me like a case of Greed vs. Greed. Ranchers want to soak the rich newcomers for 100X what they'd previously believed their own land to be worth. Ric

Sounds to me like a case of Greed vs. Greed. Ranchers want to soak the rich newcomers for 100X what they'd previously believed their own land to be worth. Rich newcomers want to buy at the old "owner had previously believed" prices.

tivert 3y ago
> Sounds to me like a case of Greed vs. Greed. Ranchers want to soak the rich newcomers for 100X what they'd previously believed their own land to be worth. Rich newcomers want to buy at the old "owner had previously believed" prices. I don't think so. From what I've heard, the ranchers want to keep the area agricultural, because the planned development would destroy their tight-knit community [1]. Not everyone is some greedy homo economicus that's only looking to maximize wealth like some SV capitalist. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/podcasts/the-daily/california-forever-tech-housing.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/podcasts/the-daily/califo...
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  One of the land owners is directly quoted as emailing in the piece: "No one is suggesting that we don’t sell, the question is when and at what price."
  - genman 3y ago
    Let's say that you own an item of sentimental value that you are not willing to sell, but if somebody would offer 1 billion for it then you would seriously consider to do it.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  The farmers have no right to force the area to remain agricultural. Their actions here are incredibly greedy as theyre lowering the bay areas housings stock which hurts everyone else who lives in the bay.
  - giantg2 3y ago
    "The farmers have no right to force the area to remain agricultural." Actually, as a landowner you do have the right to add deed restrictions to your land. There are many land conservation organizations that do this type of work too.
  - tivert 3y ago
    > The farmers have no right to force the area to remain agricultural. Personally, I think they do. > Their actions here are incredibly greedy as theyre lowering the bay areas housings stock which hurts everyone else who lives in the bay. Maybe the Bay Area should fix its own problems instead of imposing itself where it's not wanted as a "solution"?
    - HDThoreaun 3y ago
      > Maybe the Bay Area should fix its own problems than imposing itself on others as a solution? This is the bay area fixing its problems. There are other methods I agree it should take but this is a group of bay area residents literally solving their own problems.
      - tivert 3y ago
        > This is the bay area fixing its problems. By imposing itself where it's not wanted. It's like a country solving resource shortages by invading its neighbor instead of budgeting better or making its resource usage more efficient. IMHO, they should bulldoze Atherton and build 20-story Chinese-style apartment blocks there, first.
        HDThoreaun 3y ago
        I completely reject this idea that residents of an area should have any power to exclude others. These farmers dont live in a separate country. Im also in favor of apartment blocks in atherton for what its worth. We should do both.
        3y ago
alistairSH 3y ago
It's not a direct comparison, but we had something similar happen locally. A developer bought the local golf course. The area is zoned "permanent green space", so its value was well below normal market price for "mixed used" land. Of course, the developer immediately attempted to get the county to change the zoning. And having failed at the county level, they're now trying to get the state government to overrule the county zoning and allow a change. Even without building a single thing, the change in zoning would ~double the value of their investment.

tivert 3y ago

> Sounds to me like a case of Greed vs. Greed. Ranchers want to soak the rich newcomers for 100X what they'd previously believed their own land to be worth. Rich newcomers want to buy at the old "owner had previously believed" prices. I don't think so. From what I've heard, the ranchers want to keep the area agricultural, because the planned development would destroy their tight-knit community [1]. Not everyone is some greedy homo economicus that's only looking to maximize wealth like some SV capitalist. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/podcasts/the-daily/california-forever-tech-housing.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/podcasts/the-daily/califo...

ceejayoz 3y ago
One of the land owners is directly quoted as emailing in the piece: "No one is suggesting that we don’t sell, the question is when and at what price."
- genman 3y ago
  Let's say that you own an item of sentimental value that you are not willing to sell, but if somebody would offer 1 billion for it then you would seriously consider to do it.
HDThoreaun 3y ago
The farmers have no right to force the area to remain agricultural. Their actions here are incredibly greedy as theyre lowering the bay areas housings stock which hurts everyone else who lives in the bay.
- giantg2 3y ago
  "The farmers have no right to force the area to remain agricultural." Actually, as a landowner you do have the right to add deed restrictions to your land. There are many land conservation organizations that do this type of work too.
- tivert 3y ago
  > The farmers have no right to force the area to remain agricultural. Personally, I think they do. > Their actions here are incredibly greedy as theyre lowering the bay areas housings stock which hurts everyone else who lives in the bay. Maybe the Bay Area should fix its own problems instead of imposing itself where it's not wanted as a "solution"?
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    > Maybe the Bay Area should fix its own problems than imposing itself on others as a solution? This is the bay area fixing its problems. There are other methods I agree it should take but this is a group of bay area residents literally solving their own problems.
    - tivert 3y ago
      > This is the bay area fixing its problems. By imposing itself where it's not wanted. It's like a country solving resource shortages by invading its neighbor instead of budgeting better or making its resource usage more efficient. IMHO, they should bulldoze Atherton and build 20-story Chinese-style apartment blocks there, first.
      - HDThoreaun 3y ago
        I completely reject this idea that residents of an area should have any power to exclude others. These farmers dont live in a separate country. Im also in favor of apartment blocks in atherton for what its worth. We should do both.
        3y ago

alistairSH 3y ago

It's not a direct comparison, but we had something similar happen locally. A developer bought the local golf course. The area is zoned "permanent green space", so its value was well below normal market price for "mixed used" land. Of course, the developer immediately attempted to get the county to change the zoning. And having failed at the county level, they're now trying to get the state government to overrule the county zoning and allow a change. Even without building a single thing, the change in zoning would ~double the value of their investment.