5 ms·

The problem to me is that people want an amazing city with a booming economy and gorgeous landscapes to be "affordable" for the man on the street. I think our

The problem to me is that people want an amazing city with a booming economy and gorgeous landscapes to be "affordable" for the man on the street. I think our progressive politics IS to blame: for deluding San Franciscans into believing such a thing is possible.

civilian 11y ago
I agree. They didn't intend this to happen, but they hold blame for being ignorant.
- dylanjermiah 11y ago
  "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
schraeds 11y ago
Housing restrictions protecting home values in Palo Alto. Lack of social services. These are relatively easy problems to exist that do not involve existential crisis.
vrrm 11y ago
I agree. How embarrassing for them that they even think they're worthy to be in the same geography as those who live in SF. Poor people should go to poor cities without economic resources, jobs or infrastructure. Say Detroit! That way they can be with other poor people and know their 'place'. Residents of those cities can barely wait for the influx to take what few jobs they have and drive down already low wages, that's why illegal aliens are welcomed with such open arms.
- xanderjanz 11y ago
  Hmm, it seems like you've forgotten Detroit's history. Why it became your go-to example for a failed city.
  - vrrm 11y ago
    Not enough poor people from San Francisco moving there. I already told you.
- dylanjermiah 11y ago
  How many low income people can afford to live in SF now? Not many at all. There would be vast amounts of cheaper housing if there weren't artificial constraints imposed.
  - vrrm 11y ago
    No argument from me on that score. ...nor even that SF political culture lead to the current state. But getting rid of artificial housing constraints is a far cry from saying: how dare non-rich people even think they should be able to live somewhere with good economic opportunities and a high quality of life.
sliverstorm 11y ago
And in addition to all those things, they want to do it in a fixed land area with low density housing for everyone. It's the ol' iron triangle. In this case the corners are something like "Affordable, desirable, no growth, pick two"
- nopinsight 11y ago
  I believe you meant: "affordable, desirable, growth", pick two.
devalier 11y ago
I think our progressive politics IS to blame: for deluding San Franciscans into believing such a thing is possible. Actually it is possible. But the irony is that the person who came up with best idea that would have fixed/prevented this problem, has now been ostracized as a "fascist" by the left-wing tech community: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/04/formalist-manifesto-originally-posted.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/04/formali... If circa 2007, San Francisco itself had been turned into a join-stock corporation, with all the existing residents given shares, then all residents would have grown wealthy as the city grew rich. Furthermore, the government would have had an incentive to allow new housing, since that would increase total tax revenues, and thus increased dividends for all residents. Right now, the politically powerful have no incentive to improve new building, since they do not directly benefit.
- skybrian 11y ago
  Do new residents get shares? If so, how do you deal with dilution? Seems like that would become a reason to want to keep people out.
  - devalier 11y ago
    Well the exact rules would be determined by the San Francisco power blocks enacting the plan. It would be up to them. It would be unwise to give all new residents shares, for the reason that you point out. But you would want them to be able to buy shares at market rates. And maybe you also give shares to some class of people who move in, reside a long time, do a certain amount of volunteering, etc.
- r00fus 11y ago
  A simple idea that would likely lead to isolation and calcification. Things like NIMBY and decision to properly address share dilution for newcomers sound like things that simply The problem is really about how real-estate is now securitized and bought/sold primarily as investments rather than living/working quarters.
- tptacek 11y ago
  He's been ostracized for more complicated reasons than "fascism" --- I'm not sure what that word means. I think it's a little misleading to suggest that this is a case of hair-trigger political correctness. The irony of the "fascism" dig on this thread is that the source you've provided appears to be this person literally arguing for privatization in order to create a corporatist autocracy. By that way: that's the solution to San Francisco's problems you find promising? Or am I misunderstanding you? I think the author's "practical" political ideas are comical and worthy of ridicule, but that they alone don't make the author problematic. The virulent strain of scientific crypto-racism that seems to run through their writing though; that's a problem for me.
Sami_Lehtinen 11y ago
I would love to be in that kind of situation. If property prices would boom, I would just sell off and leave. Hopefully making so much money that you can live elsewhere with only on index fund investment profits. I just wish that would happen.

civilian 11y ago

I agree. They didn't intend this to happen, but they hold blame for being ignorant.

dylanjermiah 11y ago
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

schraeds 11y ago

Housing restrictions protecting home values in Palo Alto. Lack of social services. These are relatively easy problems to exist that do not involve existential crisis.

vrrm 11y ago

I agree. How embarrassing for them that they even think they're worthy to be in the same geography as those who live in SF. Poor people should go to poor cities without economic resources, jobs or infrastructure. Say Detroit! That way they can be with other poor people and know their 'place'. Residents of those cities can barely wait for the influx to take what few jobs they have and drive down already low wages, that's why illegal aliens are welcomed with such open arms.

xanderjanz 11y ago
Hmm, it seems like you've forgotten Detroit's history. Why it became your go-to example for a failed city.
- vrrm 11y ago
  Not enough poor people from San Francisco moving there. I already told you.
dylanjermiah 11y ago
How many low income people can afford to live in SF now? Not many at all. There would be vast amounts of cheaper housing if there weren't artificial constraints imposed.
- vrrm 11y ago
  No argument from me on that score. ...nor even that SF political culture lead to the current state. But getting rid of artificial housing constraints is a far cry from saying: how dare non-rich people even think they should be able to live somewhere with good economic opportunities and a high quality of life.

sliverstorm 11y ago

And in addition to all those things, they want to do it in a fixed land area with low density housing for everyone. It's the ol' iron triangle. In this case the corners are something like "Affordable, desirable, no growth, pick two"

nopinsight 11y ago
I believe you meant: "affordable, desirable, growth", pick two.

devalier 11y ago

I think our progressive politics IS to blame: for deluding San Franciscans into believing such a thing is possible. Actually it is possible. But the irony is that the person who came up with best idea that would have fixed/prevented this problem, has now been ostracized as a "fascist" by the left-wing tech community: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/04/formalist-manifesto-originally-posted.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/04/formali... If circa 2007, San Francisco itself had been turned into a join-stock corporation, with all the existing residents given shares, then all residents would have grown wealthy as the city grew rich. Furthermore, the government would have had an incentive to allow new housing, since that would increase total tax revenues, and thus increased dividends for all residents. Right now, the politically powerful have no incentive to improve new building, since they do not directly benefit.

skybrian 11y ago
Do new residents get shares? If so, how do you deal with dilution? Seems like that would become a reason to want to keep people out.
- devalier 11y ago
  Well the exact rules would be determined by the San Francisco power blocks enacting the plan. It would be up to them. It would be unwise to give all new residents shares, for the reason that you point out. But you would want them to be able to buy shares at market rates. And maybe you also give shares to some class of people who move in, reside a long time, do a certain amount of volunteering, etc.
r00fus 11y ago
A simple idea that would likely lead to isolation and calcification. Things like NIMBY and decision to properly address share dilution for newcomers sound like things that simply The problem is really about how real-estate is now securitized and bought/sold primarily as investments rather than living/working quarters.
tptacek 11y ago
He's been ostracized for more complicated reasons than "fascism" --- I'm not sure what that word means. I think it's a little misleading to suggest that this is a case of hair-trigger political correctness. The irony of the "fascism" dig on this thread is that the source you've provided appears to be this person literally arguing for privatization in order to create a corporatist autocracy. By that way: that's the solution to San Francisco's problems you find promising? Or am I misunderstanding you? I think the author's "practical" political ideas are comical and worthy of ridicule, but that they alone don't make the author problematic. The virulent strain of scientific crypto-racism that seems to run through their writing though; that's a problem for me.

Sami_Lehtinen 11y ago

I would love to be in that kind of situation. If property prices would boom, I would just sell off and leave. Hopefully making so much money that you can live elsewhere with only on index fund investment profits. I just wish that would happen.