3 ms·

As if the real problem with Oakland is that there are too many Google employees living there. Let's be honest - the only reason they do this is that Google emp

by defen 13y ago

As if the real problem with Oakland is that there are too many Google employees living there. Let's be honest - the only reason they do this is that Google employees sitting in a bus are a "soft" target. There is essentially zero chance of reprisal or consequence, at least if it's done as a one-off thing. You get to feel self-righteous for fighting "the man" without any risk. Let's say they win this quixotic crusade and actually manage to force everyone with an income above $N to flee the area. What is the next step toward a better Oakland?

aetherson 13y ago
Yeah, I want to know what people think that alternative to gentrification is. Do they imagine that high income people will eventually just not live anywhere? Do they imagine that life would be better if all growth in the Bay Area were new construction sprawl out in the edges of the urban area where there's no displacement? Is it explicitly selfish, like, "go gentrify San Jose, those guys are assholes anyway"?
- gohrt 13y ago
  Not saying it's correct or fair or appropriate in this situation with these protestors, but one philosophy is an equality-of-results (or even equality-of-opportunity, depending on how you interpret "opportunity"), that says "high income people should not be wealthy, should not enjoy the comforts of upper-middle-class existence, while the masses are poor"
- kasey_junk 13y ago
  I don't have a dog in this fight, but there are some pretty obvious things you could do to fight the burden of gentrification on lower income original members of the population (they may have other side effects that are burdensome). Off the top of my head: - Massive taxes on "teardown" or size exploding renovations. - Zoning laws that require at least 1 (or a % based) Section 8 unit per multi-unit development/renovation. - Massive subsidies on empty lot development that implement affordable housing practices. It would be even better if you implemented these changes throughout the entire metro area, not just the areas currently under development. But if you think protests by the poor for rich folks moving into their neighborhood are bad, wait until you see the inverse.
  - JimboOmega 13y ago
    By "size exploding" do you mean "reducing the number of units"? Because then I might agree. Really, though, allowing them to put up a high rise where there are currently single family homes reduces the overall pressure everywhere. Of course, SF will never subsidize empty lot development, even if there were any empty lots to build on; the right to build in SF is far higher than in any other US city - double that of (as of 2007) Los Angeles or New York: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/11/a-tale-of-two-town-houses/306334/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/11/a-tale-o... I don't know what you mean by "affordable housing practices", but the reality of it is building lots of housing units. You can subsidize the poor, but that will just push out those just rich enough not to qualify for the subsidies; it's a supply/demand problem, and the only solution is more supply or less demand. I'd agree the entire metro could benefit.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
firstOrder 13y ago
"a soft target. There is essentially zero chance of reprisal or consequence." Yes, because people are looking for hard targets. Cops don't carry guns because if they confront someone they want the odds to be "even steven". The US doesn't use drones and bombers and machine guns in Afghanistan, because they want it to be a fair fight between the soldiers and the native population. Wow, you figured out that they did something where they wouldn't all be immediately arrested and tossed in jail, that's a brilliant observation. Now explain how the people who would arrest them, with their guns and radios and SWAT teams and helicopters don't work things so that they don't go after soft targets as well? Fact is these people all have much more massive balls than 90% of the effete whiners and snivelers here and everyone knows it. I'd love to see rich liberatarian fairies like Keith Rabois or Peter Thiel go to Oakland public housing and get up in people's faces and tell them what they think should be done with them.

by defen 13y ago

aetherson 13y ago

Yeah, I want to know what people think that alternative to gentrification is. Do they imagine that high income people will eventually just not live anywhere? Do they imagine that life would be better if all growth in the Bay Area were new construction sprawl out in the edges of the urban area where there's no displacement? Is it explicitly selfish, like, "go gentrify San Jose, those guys are assholes anyway"?

gohrt 13y ago
Not saying it's correct or fair or appropriate in this situation with these protestors, but one philosophy is an equality-of-results (or even equality-of-opportunity, depending on how you interpret "opportunity"), that says "high income people should not be wealthy, should not enjoy the comforts of upper-middle-class existence, while the masses are poor"
kasey_junk 13y ago
I don't have a dog in this fight, but there are some pretty obvious things you could do to fight the burden of gentrification on lower income original members of the population (they may have other side effects that are burdensome). Off the top of my head: - Massive taxes on "teardown" or size exploding renovations. - Zoning laws that require at least 1 (or a % based) Section 8 unit per multi-unit development/renovation. - Massive subsidies on empty lot development that implement affordable housing practices. It would be even better if you implemented these changes throughout the entire metro area, not just the areas currently under development. But if you think protests by the poor for rich folks moving into their neighborhood are bad, wait until you see the inverse.
- JimboOmega 13y ago
  By "size exploding" do you mean "reducing the number of units"? Because then I might agree. Really, though, allowing them to put up a high rise where there are currently single family homes reduces the overall pressure everywhere. Of course, SF will never subsidize empty lot development, even if there were any empty lots to build on; the right to build in SF is far higher than in any other US city - double that of (as of 2007) Los Angeles or New York: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/11/a-tale-of-two-town-houses/306334/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/11/a-tale-o... I don't know what you mean by "affordable housing practices", but the reality of it is building lots of housing units. You can subsidize the poor, but that will just push out those just rich enough not to qualify for the subsidies; it's a supply/demand problem, and the only solution is more supply or less demand. I'd agree the entire metro could benefit.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

firstOrder 13y ago

"a soft target. There is essentially zero chance of reprisal or consequence." Yes, because people are looking for hard targets. Cops don't carry guns because if they confront someone they want the odds to be "even steven". The US doesn't use drones and bombers and machine guns in Afghanistan, because they want it to be a fair fight between the soldiers and the native population. Wow, you figured out that they did something where they wouldn't all be immediately arrested and tossed in jail, that's a brilliant observation. Now explain how the people who would arrest them, with their guns and radios and SWAT teams and helicopters don't work things so that they don't go after soft targets as well? Fact is these people all have much more massive balls than 90% of the effete whiners and snivelers here and everyone knows it. I'd love to see rich liberatarian fairies like Keith Rabois or Peter Thiel go to Oakland public housing and get up in people's faces and tell them what they think should be done with them.