Comment by yeukhon | Hacker News Reader

Comment by yeukhon | Hacker News Reader

The issue is complex, but let's look at demand vs supply. It is simply how the market works. The more people living in the city, the more likely the housing rent will increase. If there is a shortage, the rent will raise. If there are new apartments built, more polished, the rent will be higher. And there are companies pay for housing in MV which results in shortage.

The problem is the city does not do a good job securing affordable housing. It isn't like Googlers or Twitter employees don't shop. They probably shop a lot, spend a lot of cash.

These high-tech employees are also suffering with the high rent. Not everyone makes 180K a year. At least 1/3 of the salary goes to the government and 401K.

The other reason housing becomes less affordable is foreigners who come to invest in real estate.

Kick them out? Detroit is be happy to take care these tech geeks. But I bet 10 years later they will just be unhappy when the average residents can't afford an apartment.

My problem is with low-pay jobs. Security at big tech companies are hired by contractors and they get low pay. Google should be able to pay more, shouldn't they? I remember there was a series of protest this summer in MV.

Maybe Google should just build a dorm.

It is sad people can't afford a place to sleep. I can't imagine being homeless right now in NY, it's fucking cold. Can we do better? How do we do better? Should we have more affordable housing and more generous affordable housing policy?

How about drastically liberalizing zoning regs? How about taking a sledgehammer to restrictions on increased density? How about letting very tall skyscrapers be built with minimal delays and log rolling? Never forget the SUPPLY part in supply and demand. It's a complex problem of course, but none of this is even being considered.

> very tall skyscrapers be built with minimal delays

Coming from HK, it is indeed a way to make housing more affordable in 5-10 years, until big cash invest in them and then the entry price just goes straight up.

The ways to prevent that to happen quickly are limit how many skyscrapers apartments can be built in the next decade and how many must be reserved as affordable housing, plus restricting foreign money. But I am sure there will be resistance.

As I said, coming from HK, I was used to living in a city surrounded by walls and bricks. Then NY felt a lot different. Then this summer I went to MV for an internship and when I came back NY was strange to me. I say we can't build a lot of skyscrapers. I don't want to be surrounded by walls again.

I don't think too many people prefer the concrete-and-wall environs of HK compared to the Victorian promenades of SF. However, we are all constrained by reality and scarcity. There is scarcity of space in SF. It must be alleviated by either increasing supply or suppressing/diverting demand. If supply is increased to a much larger extent, an HK scenario is possible which might decrease subsequent demand due to reduced aesthetic value. There are no perfect states here, and choices must be made. Restrictions can stay in place, however, no one should delude themselves into thinking that this isn't a cartelized capture of value by existing property owners in bed with the city council. It doesn't mean you can't support this option, but the reality must be kept in mind.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com