Hacker News Reader

Comment by hyperhello | Hacker News Reader

You know, if an old city with a natural boundary doesn’t think you should build a bunch of profitable crap in it, maybe you could take the hint and stop acting like you’re bringing Jesus to them. San Francisco’s seen the conquistadors. In fact, many of the streets in the Sunset are named after them.

View on HN

> maybe you could take the hint

Locked supply. Affordable housing. Growing standards of living (or population). Pick two.

If you lock supply and want taxes and wages to grow, you're choosing unaffordable housing. That's San Francisco's current policy choice. Over decades, it filters the poor to San Francisco's "outer boroughs" or onto its streets.

For what it's worth, my friends who lived in San Francisco "took the hint" and moved out when they chose to have kids. They didn't sell their place, however, since the above policy mix together with California's property-tax system strongly disincentivizes that.

Ah, blue city progressivism: "Welcome to my country! Now get the fuck out of my city."

Also, note that these cities always happily welcome more offices and businesses. They just don't want to build the housing for those workers to actually live in.

That's of course an option too.

I haven't played OP's game but hopefully it accurately models the plummetting quality of life and rampant homelessness created by doing what you describe in the real world.

Or you could look at the massive number of homeless people and take the hint yourself

Yeah, how DARE people under 40 want somewhere to live!

I remember before COVID I was debating with a friend of mine whether or not private property is justifiable and it's ironic that the discussion was made obsolete by nobody being able to afford private property anymore

The justification of private property is that we don't have a proven and workable alternative at a civilizational scale.

Singapore is a pretty good example of an alternative.

Someone still builds housing in Singapore. Can't live in it if you dont build it.

You misunderstood their point. Singapore has mostly public housing, instead of private.

Should states be under corporate ownership or what do you mean?

https://blog.landeconomics.org/p/singapore-economic-prosperi...

Reminds me of this: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1259638112688304129

I have absolutely no idea what that means related to my comment, but I’m really enjoying seeing my opinions getting roasted for being out of touch.

Basically a CA politician told Musk to go fuck himself, he replied "message received" then shortly thereafter moved billions of dollars of tax revenue, jobs, development etc. out of their jurisdiction by moving his base of operations to Texas. All very viral / in the news.

You can tell people not to build in your city, just don't expect them to continue investing there if you fuck them over.

I mean, stopping housing construction hasn’t stopped the new money from pushing out the old soul. Given the US enshrines the free movement of people in the Constitution, it’s make room or have someone outbid you for yours.

Yes, lets turn everywhere into the shitty place we grew up in.

It is possible to grow in a pleasant way without mallification, seems like a lot of projecting. And it’s not like the current approach is preventing that; insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

NYC is a better place then you are a human.

let me guess, homeowner in SF?

I’m a single family homeowner in SF and as YIMBY as they come. And contrary to my goals of development even if it deflates home prices, development lags and home prices are getting more out of control.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com