Hacker News Reader

Comment by threatofrain | Hacker News Reader

But do landowners have majority voting power in SF? If not, then maybe some people aren't voting to their interests.

"But do landowners have majority voting power in SF? If not, then maybe some people aren't voting to their interests."

It is implied (and sometimes expressed) that "NIMBY" outcomes in elections like this are illegitimate and not "true" democratic outcomes.

I reject this notion. I am very much in favor of urban in-fill in San Francisco and increased density in many parts of the city - but not at the expense of democratic processes.

Agreed, if you are going to have democratic processes you must be willing to accept their outcomes, even when the results are not in your favor or grossly against your interests.

I can't verify with real numbers but my mental model is that votes on housing are not representative of the population.

SF has a very high foreigner population that cant vote. They are moslty renters. US renters also might not live enough time in the city to register, be politically active, or end up moving due to lifestyle or economic reasons. And of renters you will have those that have rent control, which end up in tandem with owners about de-regularization.

Im sure that if you put up a vote landowners and rent-controlled renters have a concentrated interest, and renters and foreigners dont have representation even if they are the majority. If you took all renters of SF in the last 6 years you might get a higher number than landowners but they cannot fight it politically.

So I adhere to the notion of unrepresentative democratic outcomes.

US renters also might not live enough time in the city to register

As of 2017, California has same-day voter registration. They can register on voting day.

They need to be inthe city on voting day, and whatever the vote is they dont have the same level of intensity of interest than the homeowners.

Lets look at the big picture: if everyone that lived in san francisco in the last 10 years voted to build more or to stop building, what would be the resulting of such a vote?

I think the answer is obvious. And the fact that it isnt, is just lack of representation.

Well, now you're moving the goalposts, but doesn't everybody have to vote where the voting devices are? Beyond that, your hypothetical is pretty loaded.

Of the group of people available to vote in the city, homeonwners will have a higher participation than renters that can vote. Becuse the latter need to match their residency with the vote, and even then, they dont know as much of the issue as the local, and even then, they dont have the same interest. (the time horizon of a renter could be 2 years, of a landlord its decades).

Thats why I devised that mental exercise: if you gathered up all the poeple that lived over 1 year in san francisco in the last 10 years, which one do you think is in the majority? pro-supply, con-supply?

Of the group of people available to vote in the city, homeonwners will have a higher participation than renters that can vote

I've never heard this before. Cite?

The last time I registered to vote after moving I was able to do it the week I moved, when I went to the DMV to get my driver's license. I would imagine it's similar in the Bay Area.

I think it's reasonable not to allow foreigners to vote on local political issues, just as we do on national ones. I wouldn't expect to have a say on political issues in countries I'm not a citizen of. Otherwise you don't have any skin in the game. You can just leave if you don't like the way things are going.

I think part of the problem is there aren't clear policy proposals to solve housing issues so it's hard to get people to support them. Plus the good land is already developed so you'd have to use eminent domain or something to build affordable housing.

> I think it's reasonable not to allow foreigners to vote on local political issues, just as we do on national ones. I wouldn't expect to have a say on political issues in countries I'm not a citizen of. Otherwise you don't have any skin in the game. You can just leave if you don't like the way things are going.

Countries have fought their independence fighting under the concept of "No Taxation without representation".

Reasonable or not I can assure you that foreigners pay the highest rents, have the least rent-control and less land in San Francisco.

I'm not sure I agree about foreigners paying the highest rents, since it really depends what groups of foreigners you're talking about. SV tech employees? Maybe. Refugees? Definitely not. Rent control and land ownership are probably true, but again, that's true of foreign nationals working anywhere, not just in SF or the US.

I think we fundamentally disagree on whether foreigners should have a say in local politics, so we can't really have a productive conversation on this topic while we remain divided on that issue.

> I think we fundamentally disagree on whether foreigners should have a say in local politics, so we can't really have a productive conversation on this topic while we remain divided on that issue.

Not if you cop-out to Refugees, how many are they, 1000?

Rental prices increases affect everyone and affect every single foreigner migrating into the bay are. It also affects people from other states, and those also cannot vote. When the situation becomes untenable they leave the city.

The implementation of democracy can never be absolutely representative, anywhere, and in this situation that 'leaky implementation' is obvious.

If you're a citizen you can vote just by proving you live in the district you want to vote in. The only people being excluded are non-citizens who I don't think should have the same say in local politics as citizens because they can return to their home country if they don't like the effects of the policies they help to enact.

I guess that makes sense on the national level, but couldn't you say that same thing about citizens voting in local politics? They can just move to a different city or state. I don't see a difference right away, but I'm interested in another take on it as far as where the line should be drawn on who gets to vote or not.

Yeah, I think that's a fair criticism. I guess to be logically consistent I'd have to be on board with not letting people vote unless they've lived in an area long enough or own property or something (requiring property ownership seems like a bad idea). I'm not sure how I feel about that though. I guess one thing I can think of is that if you're a citizen you at least nominally share many American values, which is not necessarily true for someone who is just here for career reasons.

Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. The criteria for people to have a voice in local politics shouldn't be a test as to whether they share in "American" values, whatever that means. If you had all those neo-Nazis who marched in Charlottsville move to SF tomorrow, who are US citizens but presumably (hopefully?) don't share in American values in your view, they would have the ability to vote in local elections.

People who pay rent and establish a residence should have a voice in their local(city) elections. Full Stop. Immigrants were allowed limited voting rights in State elections until the 1920's when very anti-immigrant sentiments lead to laws that prohibit that kind of voting.

Everyone votes with their feet: thats why the last Q of 2017 SF had a diminishing demographics.

But that does not make voting on housing representative of its population.

You are being held against your will in SF and can't leave?

It's the other way around. A foreigner living in SF shouldn't be able to vote where they came from. They should in SF.

I'm not sure what you mean by the first sentence. I don't live in SF.

And by foreigner I mean non-citizen. I think if you want to influence policy you should have to have something at stake.

You think foreigners dont have anything at stake?

Are you in favor of not collecting taxes from foreigners then?

> You can just leave if you don't like the way things are going.

That applies to local politics for everyone though, it's just as easy for a citizen to move to another city. I'm an immigrant to another country. I'm married, I have kids. I pay taxes. I can't just leave, I very much have skin in the game. Meanwhile the native youth are leaving in droves to bigger cities.

I like the system Sweden has - national elections are for citizens only, but local elections are open to anyone who lives in the municipality and is either (1) a Swedish or EU citizen, or (2) has lived in the country for 3 years

> Im sure that if you put up a vote landowners and rent-controlled renters have a concentrated interest, and renters and foreigners dont have representation even if they are the majority. If you took all renters of SF in the last 6 years you might get a higher number than landowners but they cannot fight it politically.

What's interesting about this situation is that there are likely many people that work in SF that would vote for expanding housing but cannot vote because they don't live in SF, presumably because they cannot afford to. The system reinforces itself.

> SF has a very high foreigner population that cant vote.

Remember, this is SF we're talking about. Long term they're not going to let a lack of citizenship stop someone from voting: https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526703128/non-citizens-will-s...

The voter laws also exclude people like me. I work in SF and would love to live in SF, but because of the high rental prices within city limits I'm living in Brisbane instead. I consider myself a natural part of the San Francisco constituency but have been disenfranchised by the city's artificially high cost of living.

You're forgetting that something like 75% of SF has rent control and are thereby excluded from the main reason to care.

EDIT: 75% of rental units & 45% of total

It's 45%, as stated by the article. Let's not let hyperbole go too far.

45% of all housing stock, but 75% of all rental units.

But they should care. Rent control is like gold hand cuffs. Eventually you face a very high chance of being trapped in a dammed if you stay (wrong location, not enough room, etc.) and dammed if you move (huge increase in rent) situation. Building more housing, in sufficient numbers, should alleviate this problem.

They do, but there's a wrinkle. Specifically, it's not fully correct to equate NIMBYs and landowners in SF. SF has plenty of renters who are also NIMBYs, having been convinced that the only way to preserve their lifestyle is to oppose everything.

They do among people who actually vote, but not among all people able to vote.

I'd say that's a pretty safe bet. The mad levels on income inequality are doing their part to obscure exactly what people's interests are in both the short- and long-term.

Local elections have pathetic turnout, usually 10 to 20%

That effectively means that one's vote counts fivefold to tenfold as much... which makes not voting, while complaining about the results, exceptionally perplexing.

They do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com