Hacker News Reader

Comment by pjc50 | Hacker News Reader

"What do you mean 'we', white man?"

The problem is there's no solidarity with the newcomers, and a strong desire by incumbents to keep the place the same and not turn it into skyscraper-filled Guangzhou. For a lot of people not building housing is an important priority in their life that they will fight for. Not to mention the question of money.

You might equally ask why the tech industry feels the need to be stuck so tightly to SF when it's far more amenable to remote work than most industries.

There's also the little matter of the earthquake zone.

View on HN

We don't need to turn into Guangzhou. We could cut housing prices in half by increasing the supply by 30%, and we could do that by replacing 6% of the city's single family houses with six-story apartment buildings. The other 94% could be left alone, and we wouldn't have to build anything else.

Details: https://reddit.com/comments/4lwg49/h/d3qnrsb

You can't try to cut prices in half withoit a story for the people who are going to lose have their investment in real estate (including tax payments on unrealized gains) or they will fight you on it. You need a way to move the windfall profits to the people crushed by regulation changes.

Those people are profiting from the misfortune of others. They aren't providing any useful good or service. They simply held on what should have been a depreciating asset, reaped the benefits of negative externalities, and now they expect the government to protect their ill-gotten gains. Fuck that. The entire point of regulation is to prevent these sorts of market failures.

The best part is many of these people aren't even landlords. So many homeowners are obsessed with the values of their homes staying high, even though it benefits them in no way whatsoever. Well, unless you count "paying more property tax" and "making the neighborhood affordable to everyone but wealthy white families" as benefits. These people are working against their own self-interest because some banker convinced them that real estate was a good investment.

Realistically, all that building is not going to happen overnight, and likely it'll only be enough to stabilize prices, rather than radically drop them.

Indeed; my point was more that even if we decided to build so much new housing that prices fell by half, it still wouldn't bring us anywhere close to Paris, much less Manhattan or Hong Kong.

Since realistically we're probably not going to do even that, fears of Manhattanization are completely unfounded.

>There's also the little matter of the earthquake zone.

So is Tokyo.

> You might equally ask why the tech industry feels the need to be stuck so tightly to SF when it's far more amenable to remote work than most industries.

This pops up in every thread about housing.

The answer is that there's still a ton of value in being in the same place as other people. Stuff happens faster. Ideas are more easily shared. Spontaneous ideas are born.

Of course at a certain point, having to pay someone way more makes it just not worth it, but that seems to be a pretty high number for a lot of companies.

In short, technology has changed a lot of things, but we're still human animals

And because of that, people who were already living there should have to move away?

If they bought in, they don't have to. If they had got their act together 20... 40 years ago and got rid of some of the NIMBY stuff causing so many problems there, that would have helped too. If there were enough housing, no one would "have to" move away.

But no, in most western countries, there is no right to live in a city just because you currently happen to live there. If you want to live in an inclusive place with room for everyone, you have to ensure that the right policies are in place. If it's something you care about, you should get involved with these people: https://twitter.com/sfyimby

There's no right for anyone to live in any city. So why should I be cheering for a bunch of rich people coming in and forcing out people who have been living there for most of their lives?

"... a strong desire by incumbents to keep the place the same and not turn it into skyscraper-filled Guangzhou. For a lot of people not building housing is an important priority in their life that they will fight for."

Which is totally reasonable.

You or I may not like it, or disagree with it, or work against that idea, but it's incorrect to claim that incumbent property owners (anywhere) protecting their perceived value in the status quo is somehow wrong or morally bankrupt or misinformed or illiberal.

Sorry, it's morally bankrupt. Four middle class families spend more on housing than most Bay Area single-family homeowners. If it were legal for those families to live in a four-plex, they'd outbid wealthy families for that land. The wealthy pay cheaper prices by using the law to prevent people with less money from bidding against them. The wealthy can't actually afford the idyllic single-family neighborhoods they claim the right to without economic segregation laws.

"Sorry, it's morally bankrupt. Four middle class families spend more on housing than most Bay Area single-family homeowners. If it were legal for those families to live in a four-plex, they'd outbid wealthy families for that land."

Yes, I also wish I had a pony.

In the face of injustice, some accept it as the way the world works. Others fight to end injustice. Economic segregation laws are abhorrent, and I am fighting to end them in Austin. I hope others fight to end them everywhere.

https://www.facebook.com/DesegregateATX/

They own property, and the value of that property is linked to how hard it is to find housing for other people. Their actions make economic sense (is this what you are referring to as "reasonable"?).

Still, most people find these actions to be immoral, as they result in plenty of suffering and wasted potential. The mealymouthed excuses about preserving historical parking lots or not creating wind tunnels or whatever are easy to see through.

The balancing act is between "what I can do with my own property" and "what I can legislate to limit what other people do with their own property". Only the most libertarian would tilt almost completely in favor of the first, but I think that currently the balance in too many places is tilted far too much towards the second. And I would not hesitate to call it illiberal.

As I've said before here, it's a totally reasonable thing to desire, if you're an incumbent, but we should be totally unsympathetic to it, anyway.

I'm not really seeing why I should be sympathetic to those trying to go in and drive out the people already there.

Imagine two extremes, as an illustration:

1. In one city, incumbents rule. Their property values rise to a level that keeps everyone else out. They make all the rules. They were there first and they win. It's theirs and outsiders should respect that.

2. The second city is open to anyone, always changing. Incumbents cannot expect gains by virtue of having been first. Everyone there has the same expectation of benefiting from the city as anyone else. Anyone in the country is free (and able) to make a life there, if they choose.

I know which city sounds better to me. I know which one sounds like it benefits the most people, for the longest amount of time.

Of course incumbents prefer #1. Of course.

But, so what?

Again, at the same time, why should I cheer for people who are coming in, forcing out people who have lived there for their entire lives, simply because they have more money? That sounds like straight up bullying to me.

Japan is in the worst earthquake zone. How are 2 million dollar 4:2 "homes" and stressed and strained schools a good thing? Where are your kids going to live? Do even consider planning for the future?

If you're so worried about earthquakes, you're more than welcome to leave the Bay yourself. And I love how you equate building more housing to lifeless Chinese skyscrapers.

> If you're so worried about earthquakes, you're more than welcome to leave the Bay yourself.

What an inane response.

Especially as I'm five thousand miles away from the Bay.

Anyway, the point stands that the problem isn't solved because plenty of people either don't want it solved or refuse a solution that disadvantages them the slightest bit. A common problem the world over.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com