This is a terrible idea.
The SF YIMBY movement is completely out of touch with the spirit of SF.
I say this as a native San Franciscan.
I say this as a native San Franciscan.
Understanding something is not the same as liking or agreeing with it.
- - - -
Heh, seriously though, FWIW, as someone who grew up here and was, until recently, against what I called at the time the Manhattan-ization of San Francisco, the argument that did the most to change my mind about growth was a quick review of the history of the place: In a nutshell: Ohlone, Spanish, 49ers, ..., Beatniks, Hippies, ..., Tech Bros.
In other words, locals getting displaced by incoming waves of invaders is more-or-less the history of San Francisco, from founding to the present day.
That, combined with the simple fact that I'll never realistically be able to afford to buy a home in my home town (despite having a decent career programming computers), convinced me that we should try to build ridiculous amounts of housing here. Like enough to put a serious dent in the housing shortage on a national scale, eh? Let's build hundreds of thousands of new units! I don't know how the logistics would work out, but I bet we could figure it out.
I should also point out that 20 year high interest rates are bringing down the prices of homes so you may be able to buy one here shortly.
Yes, we are probably 50-60k units behind where we should be, but that doesn't mean we should build them without intelligence. Building along underground transit lines should be the primary goal because thats where its the most sustainable AND where its most likely to fix our urban blight brought on by the last 3 years of "stuff".
The city's budget does need new taxpayers but putting folks all the way out by the ocean is truly a bad idea and a way to create pain.
It's relevant to getting the current residents to recognize that they're not the ultimate endpoint to the history of the San Francisco peninsula, eh? At least, that's what it did for me. :)
> you forgot the Yuppies then the Wuppies :)
It's true. That '...' between the 49ers and the Beatniks elided a lot too, eh?
> Yes, we are probably 50-60k units behind where we should be, but that doesn't mean we should build them without intelligence. Building along underground transit lines should be the primary goal because thats where its the most sustainable AND where its most likely to fix our urban blight brought on by the last 3 years of "stuff".
> The city's budget does need new taxpayers but putting folks all the way out by the ocean is truly a bad idea and a way to create pain.
I agree with you. Well said! Cheers
YIMBYism is very misguided in SF.
(Also, the idea that you need to have lived here for some arbitrary tenure to vote on issues is gross.)
In other words, it's nice that your family was able to make it work here, and I genuinely think that it is an important perspective to consider, but maybe keep in mind that just because others weren't / aren't as fortunate doesn't mean they shouldn't have an equal claim to shaping the city's future.
All of those past issues are gone as of 70-40 years ago, harping about them is orthogonal.
I know plenty of people who're poor who've managed to stick it out as well, or they left for greener pastures and are happy with those choices.
And as I've said elsewhere - building is fine, but this building is ridiculous.
For another, the fact that some people are able to make it work doesn't change the fact that the policies you and your friends advocate for actively make it harder for people to "stick it out." Which is a convenient way to limit who gets a say in what this city becomes.