6 ms·

But NIMBYs who won't allow construction in cities have made cities unaffordable.

by ageek123 12y ago

m3talridl3y 12y ago
And ironically they pay way more in taxes building excessively large public transit systems.
- pyre 12y ago
  > excessively large public transit systems Because the "real" solution is for every single person to own and drive a car that seats 4, but 99% of the time only has 1 person in it?
  - CamperBob2 12y ago
    People who can afford to do so usually avoid public transportation. Instead of posting a new edition of the same self-righteous HN thread bewailing other peoples' choices practically every single day of the week, it might be interesting to examine the apparent dissonance between the way amateur urban planners think things should work, and the way they actually do.
    - philwelch 12y ago
      That's a product of urban design, not a cause or a premise. Rich New York bankers don't drive cars.
      - learc83 12y ago
        >Rich New York bankers don't drive cars. But do they take public transportation? Or do they use a car service? They're paying to avoid public transportation exactly like the OP said.
        saryant 12y ago
        Yes? John Paulson, architect of the largest trade in Wall Street history, takes public transit to work every day.
        CamperBob2 12y ago
        "Anecdote" is not the singular of "data."
    - erispoe 12y ago
      Yeah, tech workers in SF making 150-300k certainly "can't afford to drive" I am sure.
      - CamperBob2 12y ago
        I hate to be the one to break this to you, but SF isn't the only city in the US.
        TheCoelacanth 12y ago
        It's one of the few with passable public transportation, and the in the others with passable public transportation (e.g. NYC, DC, Boston), many people who could afford to drive take public transportation.
        CamperBob2 12y ago
        ... usually because they have no choice in the matter. This particular story is about surburban sprawl, which means that anything happening in SF, NYC, DC, or Boston is completely irrelevant.
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
    - acveilleux 12y ago
      I take transit to work. I make a good living. I could chose to drive but where I live (Montreal) has good public transit. It takes me 20-25 minutes to get to work by subway (door to door.) Mostly it's that I work downtown and chose to buy my condo in a neighbourhood with good transit. As a result, driving would "save" me 5 to 10 minutes but require 300$/month parking spot to actually save any time. If I worked out in an industrial park (where my employer also has an office) driving would be a no-brainer however. Parking out there is free and transit is annoying (bus every 15-30 minutes during rush hour only, multiple connections.) At that office, from my house driving saves 10-15 minutes of commute during rush hour and 15-45 minutes outside of it. In extreme cases (our support staff working the graveyard shift) driving saves 2+ hours or a very expensive taxi ride.
    - pyre 12y ago
      > People who can afford to do so usually avoid public transportation. There are a number of factors at play here. To pretend that just because people act a certain way that the decision is based in fact and logic ignores reality. People don't use public transit because: 1. They don't want to mingle with the "lower classes." 2. Driving a car for a long time was a status symbol. It's less of a status symbol today, but the effects of this are still embedded in American culture. Those "with money" can afford a car. If you take transit, then you are "poor." So if you take transit you are signalling to others that you are "poor." Or you are afraid that you might have to sit across from someone that is "poor" and that would make you feel uncomfortable. 3. Buying a car for a long time was also "supporting America" (cue people chanting 'USA! USA!') because you were supporting the Big 3. 4. People get annoyed at having to wait for things like the bus. Even of the bus runs every 10 minutes, the fact that you might have to wait 10 minutes for something is enough for people to get upset about it.
      - CamperBob2 12y ago
        There are a number of factors at play here. To pretend that just because people act a certain way that the decision is based in fact and logic ignores reality. Which is my whole point: we should find out what the actual basis for their decision is, and take it into consideration. But it's much more fun to adopt an air of superiority on HN as you settle into your comfy seat on the bus to the Facebook campus, where your worst immediate problem is that your attractive and personable seatmate has spilled a bit of his latte on your armrest. This is not most peoples' lives, but you'd never know it from reading all of the "B... b... but SF!" comments in these threads.
IndianAstronaut 12y ago
Nimbys are causing havoc in Austin. My old VP bought a giant house on the west side of town and now wants to prohibit building there so as to keep up land values. There are also lots of groups that dont want high rises, etc. Property prices are shooting up now.

But NIMBYs who won't allow construction in cities have made cities unaffordable.

m3talridl3y 12y ago

And ironically they pay way more in taxes building excessively large public transit systems.

pyre 12y ago
> excessively large public transit systems Because the "real" solution is for every single person to own and drive a car that seats 4, but 99% of the time only has 1 person in it?
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  People who can afford to do so usually avoid public transportation. Instead of posting a new edition of the same self-righteous HN thread bewailing other peoples' choices practically every single day of the week, it might be interesting to examine the apparent dissonance between the way amateur urban planners think things should work, and the way they actually do.
  - philwelch 12y ago
    That's a product of urban design, not a cause or a premise. Rich New York bankers don't drive cars.
    - learc83 12y ago
      >Rich New York bankers don't drive cars. But do they take public transportation? Or do they use a car service? They're paying to avoid public transportation exactly like the OP said.
      - saryant 12y ago
        Yes? John Paulson, architect of the largest trade in Wall Street history, takes public transit to work every day.
        CamperBob2 12y ago
        "Anecdote" is not the singular of "data."
  - erispoe 12y ago
    Yeah, tech workers in SF making 150-300k certainly "can't afford to drive" I am sure.
    - CamperBob2 12y ago
      I hate to be the one to break this to you, but SF isn't the only city in the US.
      - TheCoelacanth 12y ago
        It's one of the few with passable public transportation, and the in the others with passable public transportation (e.g. NYC, DC, Boston), many people who could afford to drive take public transportation.
        CamperBob2 12y ago
        ... usually because they have no choice in the matter. This particular story is about surburban sprawl, which means that anything happening in SF, NYC, DC, or Boston is completely irrelevant.
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
  - acveilleux 12y ago
    I take transit to work. I make a good living. I could chose to drive but where I live (Montreal) has good public transit. It takes me 20-25 minutes to get to work by subway (door to door.) Mostly it's that I work downtown and chose to buy my condo in a neighbourhood with good transit. As a result, driving would "save" me 5 to 10 minutes but require 300$/month parking spot to actually save any time. If I worked out in an industrial park (where my employer also has an office) driving would be a no-brainer however. Parking out there is free and transit is annoying (bus every 15-30 minutes during rush hour only, multiple connections.) At that office, from my house driving saves 10-15 minutes of commute during rush hour and 15-45 minutes outside of it. In extreme cases (our support staff working the graveyard shift) driving saves 2+ hours or a very expensive taxi ride.
  - pyre 12y ago
    > People who can afford to do so usually avoid public transportation. There are a number of factors at play here. To pretend that just because people act a certain way that the decision is based in fact and logic ignores reality. People don't use public transit because: 1. They don't want to mingle with the "lower classes." 2. Driving a car for a long time was a status symbol. It's less of a status symbol today, but the effects of this are still embedded in American culture. Those "with money" can afford a car. If you take transit, then you are "poor." So if you take transit you are signalling to others that you are "poor." Or you are afraid that you might have to sit across from someone that is "poor" and that would make you feel uncomfortable. 3. Buying a car for a long time was also "supporting America" (cue people chanting 'USA! USA!') because you were supporting the Big 3. 4. People get annoyed at having to wait for things like the bus. Even of the bus runs every 10 minutes, the fact that you might have to wait 10 minutes for something is enough for people to get upset about it.
    - CamperBob2 12y ago
      There are a number of factors at play here. To pretend that just because people act a certain way that the decision is based in fact and logic ignores reality. Which is my whole point: we should find out what the actual basis for their decision is, and take it into consideration. But it's much more fun to adopt an air of superiority on HN as you settle into your comfy seat on the bus to the Facebook campus, where your worst immediate problem is that your attractive and personable seatmate has spilled a bit of his latte on your armrest. This is not most peoples' lives, but you'd never know it from reading all of the "B... b... but SF!" comments in these threads.

IndianAstronaut 12y ago

Nimbys are causing havoc in Austin. My old VP bought a giant house on the west side of town and now wants to prohibit building there so as to keep up land values. There are also lots of groups that dont want high rises, etc. Property prices are shooting up now.