5 ms·

This won't be a popular thing to say, but both Facebook and Google (and many others) are now at the scale where they can really effectively impact policy. They

by kunle 13y ago

This won't be a popular thing to say, but both Facebook and Google (and many others) are now at the scale where they can really effectively impact policy. They already do this at the national level (Eg immigration/SOPA) - and focusing on changing housing policy at the local level (to encourage more density & units) would go a long way to alleviate these issues. This isn't for charity - the housing shortage isn't particularly pleasant for their employees either, as it makes everything scarcer/more expensive (parking, grocery, other cost of living). Edit: A couple of references on housing: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/How-San-Francisco-creates-its-own-housing-crisis-5139869.php#src=fb http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/How-San-Fran...

727374 13y ago
What does housing have to do with this? It's not like FB employees live in SF for the cheap housing.
- fancyketchup 13y ago
  There have recently been rumblings that Google and FB are 'bad' because they hire people who move to SF. These employees increase demand for housing in SF, which tends to price out people who have been living there longer. Some people feel this is undesirable, and have made their feelings known by, e.g., protesting Google buses. Increasing the supply of housing (by changing zoning rules) would tend to reduce the market rate for housing in SF.
  - narrator 13y ago
    Unfortunately San Francisco is not impressed by billionaires.
  - king_jester 13y ago
    > Increasing the supply of housing (by changing zoning rules) would tend to reduce the market rate for housing in SF. This is not necessarily true. Housing prices don't fall uniformly in an area as more units become available, so existing residents may still be displaced. Also, more people may move from elsewhere to fill the vacancies provided by new units, driving higher prices for new units and making an area unaffordable for existing residents.
    - fancyketchup 13y ago
      > Housing prices don't fall uniformly in an area as more units become available, so existing residents may still be displaced. This is true, but you need to consider the supply and demand for housing in aggregate. You also need to consider how one type of housing can substitute for another. Building luxury condos (for example) doesn't immediately help middle and lower-middle class renters. However, the condo could appeal to highly-paid software engineers who would have otherwise rented an expensive but basic. That reduces demand for basic apartments, which puts downward pressure on prices for those units. It's not the same effect as just building a bunch of basic apartments, but it still helps more than doing nothing. > Also, more people may move from elsewhere to fill the vacancies provided by new units, driving higher prices for new units and making an area unaffordable for existing residents. This doesn't really make any sense at all. You're saying that rising rents encourage people to move to move to SF. If anything, rising rents will tend to discourage people from moving to SF for a tech job. Sure, the salary is high, but why bother if you're going have less left over after paying rent? Look, it's not valid to say that people are perfectly rational, uniform, black spheres. People make irrational decisions all the time. But nobody says to him/herself, "I'd like to move to New York next year because the cost of living is so high." Building more housing units will result in more people living in SF, but it will also reduce the cost of living in SF compared to--and this part is important--what it would have otherwise been.
- samstave 13y ago
  Facebook is also building a company village near campus to house their people in...
erehweb 13y ago
They can certainly try to impact policy, but are they able to? Immigration reform is stymied, net neutrality is lost. In California, major issues include Prop 13 limiting property tax increases, resistance to development in SF, and arguably rent control in SF. See no evidence that FB or Goog would be able to make any difference to these - big blocks of voters like things how they are.
- rdl 13y ago
  Tech companies do have power on the Peninsula itself. The best thing they could do is try to fix the building height restrictions along the Caltrain corridor, and licensing rules for food/bar/entertainment, to make the Peninsula a more attractive place for 30something (if not 20something) employees. Mountain View and Cupertino, at least, seem to behave relatively sanely. Santa Clara almost goes too far as an industry town.
  - Crito 13y ago
    I'm not sure anything could piss off SF tech company protesters more than Facebook/Google attempting to fix building height restrictions. At the core of it, these people have a xenophobic fear of change. They might be making noise about rent prices now, but if these companies tried to address this concern, the concerns would shift.
    - argumentum 13y ago
      rdl was talking about buildings in the peninsula & south bay, not in SF.
    - rdl 13y ago
      I think one of their explicit goals is "techies get out" -- if everyone moved to San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, and SF tax base dropped, it'd be self-correcting. The problem is the Peninsula actually is boring, at least for single people who don't drive. I'd rather see SFBA tech contribute $10-20b on making the Peninsula an awesome place to live, rather than trying to fix SF's infrastructure and politics. Plus, there's money to be made doing it.

by kunle 13y ago

727374 13y ago

What does housing have to do with this? It's not like FB employees live in SF for the cheap housing.

fancyketchup 13y ago
There have recently been rumblings that Google and FB are 'bad' because they hire people who move to SF. These employees increase demand for housing in SF, which tends to price out people who have been living there longer. Some people feel this is undesirable, and have made their feelings known by, e.g., protesting Google buses. Increasing the supply of housing (by changing zoning rules) would tend to reduce the market rate for housing in SF.
- narrator 13y ago
  Unfortunately San Francisco is not impressed by billionaires.
- king_jester 13y ago
  > Increasing the supply of housing (by changing zoning rules) would tend to reduce the market rate for housing in SF. This is not necessarily true. Housing prices don't fall uniformly in an area as more units become available, so existing residents may still be displaced. Also, more people may move from elsewhere to fill the vacancies provided by new units, driving higher prices for new units and making an area unaffordable for existing residents.
  - fancyketchup 13y ago
    > Housing prices don't fall uniformly in an area as more units become available, so existing residents may still be displaced. This is true, but you need to consider the supply and demand for housing in aggregate. You also need to consider how one type of housing can substitute for another. Building luxury condos (for example) doesn't immediately help middle and lower-middle class renters. However, the condo could appeal to highly-paid software engineers who would have otherwise rented an expensive but basic. That reduces demand for basic apartments, which puts downward pressure on prices for those units. It's not the same effect as just building a bunch of basic apartments, but it still helps more than doing nothing. > Also, more people may move from elsewhere to fill the vacancies provided by new units, driving higher prices for new units and making an area unaffordable for existing residents. This doesn't really make any sense at all. You're saying that rising rents encourage people to move to move to SF. If anything, rising rents will tend to discourage people from moving to SF for a tech job. Sure, the salary is high, but why bother if you're going have less left over after paying rent? Look, it's not valid to say that people are perfectly rational, uniform, black spheres. People make irrational decisions all the time. But nobody says to him/herself, "I'd like to move to New York next year because the cost of living is so high." Building more housing units will result in more people living in SF, but it will also reduce the cost of living in SF compared to--and this part is important--what it would have otherwise been.
samstave 13y ago
Facebook is also building a company village near campus to house their people in...

erehweb 13y ago

They can certainly try to impact policy, but are they able to? Immigration reform is stymied, net neutrality is lost. In California, major issues include Prop 13 limiting property tax increases, resistance to development in SF, and arguably rent control in SF. See no evidence that FB or Goog would be able to make any difference to these - big blocks of voters like things how they are.

rdl 13y ago
Tech companies do have power on the Peninsula itself. The best thing they could do is try to fix the building height restrictions along the Caltrain corridor, and licensing rules for food/bar/entertainment, to make the Peninsula a more attractive place for 30something (if not 20something) employees. Mountain View and Cupertino, at least, seem to behave relatively sanely. Santa Clara almost goes too far as an industry town.
- Crito 13y ago
  I'm not sure anything could piss off SF tech company protesters more than Facebook/Google attempting to fix building height restrictions. At the core of it, these people have a xenophobic fear of change. They might be making noise about rent prices now, but if these companies tried to address this concern, the concerns would shift.
  - argumentum 13y ago
    rdl was talking about buildings in the peninsula & south bay, not in SF.
  - rdl 13y ago
    I think one of their explicit goals is "techies get out" -- if everyone moved to San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, and SF tax base dropped, it'd be self-correcting. The problem is the Peninsula actually is boring, at least for single people who don't drive. I'd rather see SFBA tech contribute $10-20b on making the Peninsula an awesome place to live, rather than trying to fix SF's infrastructure and politics. Plus, there's money to be made doing it.