I think your analysis is spot-on. Those existing NIMBY's bought their house with an expectation, and they vote accordingly.
I don't think there's really a way forward without torching rule of law. They don't want the place to be amenable to new/young people, and they make the rules.
It's unfortunate that big tech decided to make this place their home, perhaps with covid and remote work it will go back to a dreamy boomer-land.
These selfish NIMBY assholes have been borrowing from their cities future as they both condemn newcomers, tax them extra (prop 13), refuse to build new housing for them, and then profit off the induced housing demand.
The selfish assholes that think they can tell people who live in other communities what those communities ought to be - are the the root of the problem.
There are vast, open, free spaces for people to build and live in communities as they so choose.
If people want to live in homes and not high rises, it's absolutely their choice, and visa versa. Anyone who wants to live among them, in homes, is free to do that. If they want to live in high rises, they can go to where there are high rises, or where there are those who want to build them.
Are there situations where the people in control cannot even change the system if they wanted to, based on the interests that have been set up? And situations where a minority's interest in preserving the status quo prevent what could be an overall better situation for everyone else?
Also, this sounds a lot like, "As long as you're under my roof you'll follow my rules, young man". Which is not always reflective of a healthy situation.
An interesting proposal I've seen that attempts to still save the retirees from being forced to move out for not paying their taxes vs houses locked at a certain rate for too long would be to recover the FMV rate owned taxes upon selling.
Currently, not only does the existing homeowner have to pay less taxes (if prices increase over 2% YoY), but later when they sell their house they can cash in the entire difference. That doesn't seem fair if the entire point of Prop 13 was to protect retirees from being kicked out of their house. So instead, make it so that when the house is sold they have to pay in backtaxes all the difference between the FMV based tax and what they actually payed from any profit they are making on the house. Also stop all means of being able to pass the house between generations without re-assessment (that is currently possible in many states in CA).
The way forward is not to 'torch the rule of law'.
There are plenty of ways to do things. Oregon just passed a housing law (HB 2001) that re-legalizes "missing middle" housing for instance, by right, in all our cities.
In other words, you take some of the zoning control away from hyper-NIMBY local jurisdictions.
Larger political entities can consider more than the narrow, selfish interests of a few "I've got mine" NIMBYs, such as future residents, the racist history of zoning, and the impact on the environment of forcing people to commute a long ways.
Local control in places like Palo Alto is two wolves and a sheep voting for what to have for dinner.
Some of us would like our children to be able to live in the place they are growing up. And we value what newcomers and immigrants bring to the table in terms of hard work, new ideas, energy, and so on.
Also, one of the easiest ways to make people better off is to let them move to where the jobs are. That used to be very common in the United States. That has been stunted in some part by rigid land use laws that pull up the ladder behind the people who got in while the getting was good.
There is a lot of work in economics showing the benefits of clustering, rather than having a talented up and coming person move to, say, Cyanide Springs Oklahoma because it's cheap.
If you want your children to live there, perhaps allowing newcomers isn't the best idea? Our housing prices go up up up as does our population, and the only approved solution seems to be to lower our quality of life.
Unless you think living in an apartment with no garage, no yard, no storage, and no way to stockpile food (save costs) is a quality of life increase?
Our children will probably not have children if forced to live this way at this price.
Personally I don't really get it, but I don't live in San Francisco.
Our children will probably not have children if forced to live this way at this price.
Maybe check out some other parts of the world where this is the norm, and people have plenty of kids, once the pandemic is over.
And it's not a given that that happens in any case. People might not choose to live quite so densely, but if they want to, the option is there.
Look at the 'Montreal' option in that article for instance. That'd add a lot of people without having Big Towers.
And I actually lived in Italy, in a flat, with no yard for a while. It was great - we'd go to the park with my kids where they'd almost always see friends. Way better than our big yard here in the US where "there's nothing to do".
I'm Not from the US, but from a country with overwhelming support for same-sex marriage. I'm also from a country that has a proper democracy where voter turn out is 98+% and first-past the post isn't a thing.
What is the alternative you suggest... you hope you get a ruler who agrees with you? Good luck with that.
Glad to hear you live in a country like that, I wish I could say the same. But these are core difficulties with the United States that aren't going away any time soon.
The nation is very divided and there's no hope of overthrowing first-past-the-post here.
And when the nation doesn't agree on things, allowing the majority to rule can be terrifying.
That's not true, I'm quite certain a number of states have started removing first-past-the-post in favour of preferential systems. (Sorry I don't know the states nor what the term for the above is in the US).
I agree democracy has its flaws... but what's the alternative? (This is highly off topic sorry). But complaining that minority rule to protect a "Happy Neighbourhood" is morally equivalent to "gay rights" seems like a dishonest argument to me.
My point is that these things can be morally ambiguous depending on the society you talk to. There are many places on earth that don't allow gay marriage to this day (or anything gay at all).
One of the main problems with democracy is that it incentives politicians to buy voters, rather than use principled judgment. Everything becomes "politicking" to the lowest common denominator, because they have the most votes, and are most influenced by emotion.
Every system has it's flaws, and ultimately, I believe the problem is the people, not the government. If people were more principled, they wouldn't be susceptible to this emotional rhetoric. Monarchies are not inherently unjust, although many of them have been.
One additional problem with democracy, at least in the US, is that it sells out to the highest bidder. The masses are easily manipulated with TV and other propaganda, and they are the ones who elect the winner. It's like an oligarchy - the politicans are beholden to big money.
But people blame the politicans, not the oligarchs. They vote out "bad" politicians, only for new puppets to take their place, protecting the true masters (business interests, wall street, etc).
In a true oligarchy, people eventually go for blood. It's a joke to think that the riots on Jan 6th would do anything - kill the puppets, and the puppeteer brings in a new prop.
But effective democracy limits financing, which solves the buying votes problem.
Investment in education solves a lot of the manipulation problem.
You are Using one of the most dysfunctional democracies as your standard and then pointing out how bad that standard is. The US is a pathetic excuse for a democracy. It’s got some really great ideas that are stifled intentionally.
But you haven’t provided an alternative...
And back to the original point... you would like a monarch to rule The Bay Area?
Please don’t stop at Plato, Aristotle expanded on it and specifically made some key observations around democracy relating to “the wisdom of the masses”.
"It's unfortunate that big tech decided to make this place their home"
Big Tech was established when much of that area was literally little bits separated by fields and farmland.
I think our living spaces are more important than industry, if we need more housing for Googlers etc. well, there's tons of room in Cali. There are even many areas amenable to more density, it's just not SF or Palo Alto.
I'll bet that in Oakland it's much more possible to build semi-high buildings and fairly dense, modern 4 story buildings for the middle class, it's just that fewer people want to live there.
I wonder if Apple and Google get together and bought a large plot of land south of Morgan Hill, they could build a mini city to house 500K people and frankly run the gauntlet of whatever they wanted in terms of setting the rules, and there are at least 500K migrants who'd be happy to live there.
Imagine 'Facebook Campus' but now, your home as well. What's Orwellian to you and I would probably be fine for others. And of course, less cynically, it wouldn't need to be like that either.
But, they do something similar - they open offices in other cities until the cost of living rises to match San Francisco (see Portland and Seattle). It's just not in California.
Comments
I think your analysis is spot-on. Those existing NIMBY's bought their house with an expectation, and they vote accordingly.
I don't think there's really a way forward without torching rule of law. They don't want the place to be amenable to new/young people, and they make the rules.
It's unfortunate that big tech decided to make this place their home, perhaps with covid and remote work it will go back to a dreamy boomer-land.
These selfish NIMBY assholes have been borrowing from their cities future as they both condemn newcomers, tax them extra (prop 13), refuse to build new housing for them, and then profit off the induced housing demand.
The selfish assholes that think they can tell people who live in other communities what those communities ought to be - are the the root of the problem.
There are vast, open, free spaces for people to build and live in communities as they so choose.
If people want to live in homes and not high rises, it's absolutely their choice, and visa versa. Anyone who wants to live among them, in homes, is free to do that. If they want to live in high rises, they can go to where there are high rises, or where there are those who want to build them.
Are there situations where the people in control cannot even change the system if they wanted to, based on the interests that have been set up? And situations where a minority's interest in preserving the status quo prevent what could be an overall better situation for everyone else?
Also, this sounds a lot like, "As long as you're under my roof you'll follow my rules, young man". Which is not always reflective of a healthy situation.
You generally have to be 18 to move to another city.
An interesting proposal I've seen that attempts to still save the retirees from being forced to move out for not paying their taxes vs houses locked at a certain rate for too long would be to recover the FMV rate owned taxes upon selling.
Currently, not only does the existing homeowner have to pay less taxes (if prices increase over 2% YoY), but later when they sell their house they can cash in the entire difference. That doesn't seem fair if the entire point of Prop 13 was to protect retirees from being kicked out of their house. So instead, make it so that when the house is sold they have to pay in backtaxes all the difference between the FMV based tax and what they actually payed from any profit they are making on the house. Also stop all means of being able to pass the house between generations without re-assessment (that is currently possible in many states in CA).
I heard this is done in some parts of Texas actually (?).
Property taxes go up in a more sane way, and if you can't afford it, you get it tacked on to the sale of your home at the end...
The way forward is not to 'torch the rule of law'.
There are plenty of ways to do things. Oregon just passed a housing law (HB 2001) that re-legalizes "missing middle" housing for instance, by right, in all our cities.
In other words, you take some of the zoning control away from hyper-NIMBY local jurisdictions.
So "torch the will of local citizens" instead? Why should the rest of the state get to decide what they do in their neighborhoods?
As long as you agree with the majority of the state, it works out for you, but it's a bold power grab that may not end well in other situations.
Larger political entities can consider more than the narrow, selfish interests of a few "I've got mine" NIMBYs, such as future residents, the racist history of zoning, and the impact on the environment of forcing people to commute a long ways.
Local control in places like Palo Alto is two wolves and a sheep voting for what to have for dinner.
Perhaps the new residents could consider moving literally anywhere else?
Some of us would like our children to be able to live in the place they are growing up. And we value what newcomers and immigrants bring to the table in terms of hard work, new ideas, energy, and so on.
Also, one of the easiest ways to make people better off is to let them move to where the jobs are. That used to be very common in the United States. That has been stunted in some part by rigid land use laws that pull up the ladder behind the people who got in while the getting was good.
There is a lot of work in economics showing the benefits of clustering, rather than having a talented up and coming person move to, say, Cyanide Springs Oklahoma because it's cheap.
If you want your children to live there, perhaps allowing newcomers isn't the best idea? Our housing prices go up up up as does our population, and the only approved solution seems to be to lower our quality of life.
Unless you think living in an apartment with no garage, no yard, no storage, and no way to stockpile food (save costs) is a quality of life increase?
Our children will probably not have children if forced to live this way at this price.
Personally I don't really get it, but I don't live in San Francisco.
That's not true, though.
https://www.sightline.org/2017/09/21/yes-you-can-build-your-...
Maybe check out some other parts of the world where this is the norm, and people have plenty of kids, once the pandemic is over.
And it's not a given that that happens in any case. People might not choose to live quite so densely, but if they want to, the option is there.
Look at the 'Montreal' option in that article for instance. That'd add a lot of people without having Big Towers.
And I actually lived in Italy, in a flat, with no yard for a while. It was great - we'd go to the park with my kids where they'd almost always see friends. Way better than our big yard here in the US where "there's nothing to do".
So democracy?
https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-ga...
Look at this chart. The majority should not always control the few.
edit: never thought I'd see anti-gay-marriage on HN but here we are.
Bad faith response. But I'll clarify to be clear:
I'm Not from the US, but from a country with overwhelming support for same-sex marriage. I'm also from a country that has a proper democracy where voter turn out is 98+% and first-past the post isn't a thing.
What is the alternative you suggest... you hope you get a ruler who agrees with you? Good luck with that.
Glad to hear you live in a country like that, I wish I could say the same. But these are core difficulties with the United States that aren't going away any time soon.
The nation is very divided and there's no hope of overthrowing first-past-the-post here.
And when the nation doesn't agree on things, allowing the majority to rule can be terrifying.
That's not true, I'm quite certain a number of states have started removing first-past-the-post in favour of preferential systems. (Sorry I don't know the states nor what the term for the above is in the US).
I agree democracy has its flaws... but what's the alternative? (This is highly off topic sorry). But complaining that minority rule to protect a "Happy Neighbourhood" is morally equivalent to "gay rights" seems like a dishonest argument to me.
My point is that these things can be morally ambiguous depending on the society you talk to. There are many places on earth that don't allow gay marriage to this day (or anything gay at all).
One of the main problems with democracy is that it incentives politicians to buy voters, rather than use principled judgment. Everything becomes "politicking" to the lowest common denominator, because they have the most votes, and are most influenced by emotion.
Every system has it's flaws, and ultimately, I believe the problem is the people, not the government. If people were more principled, they wouldn't be susceptible to this emotional rhetoric. Monarchies are not inherently unjust, although many of them have been.
One additional problem with democracy, at least in the US, is that it sells out to the highest bidder. The masses are easily manipulated with TV and other propaganda, and they are the ones who elect the winner. It's like an oligarchy - the politicans are beholden to big money.
But people blame the politicans, not the oligarchs. They vote out "bad" politicians, only for new puppets to take their place, protecting the true masters (business interests, wall street, etc).
In a true oligarchy, people eventually go for blood. It's a joke to think that the riots on Jan 6th would do anything - kill the puppets, and the puppeteer brings in a new prop.
If you find this topic interesting I highly recommend Plato's Republic available free: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1497
But effective democracy limits financing, which solves the buying votes problem.
Investment in education solves a lot of the manipulation problem.
You are Using one of the most dysfunctional democracies as your standard and then pointing out how bad that standard is. The US is a pathetic excuse for a democracy. It’s got some really great ideas that are stifled intentionally.
But you haven’t provided an alternative...
And back to the original point... you would like a monarch to rule The Bay Area?
Please don’t stop at Plato, Aristotle expanded on it and specifically made some key observations around democracy relating to “the wisdom of the masses”.
"It's unfortunate that big tech decided to make this place their home"
Big Tech was established when much of that area was literally little bits separated by fields and farmland.
I think our living spaces are more important than industry, if we need more housing for Googlers etc. well, there's tons of room in Cali. There are even many areas amenable to more density, it's just not SF or Palo Alto.
I'll bet that in Oakland it's much more possible to build semi-high buildings and fairly dense, modern 4 story buildings for the middle class, it's just that fewer people want to live there.
I wonder if Apple and Google get together and bought a large plot of land south of Morgan Hill, they could build a mini city to house 500K people and frankly run the gauntlet of whatever they wanted in terms of setting the rules, and there are at least 500K migrants who'd be happy to live there.
Imagine 'Facebook Campus' but now, your home as well. What's Orwellian to you and I would probably be fine for others. And of course, less cynically, it wouldn't need to be like that either.
I am surprised that they don't do just that.
But, they do something similar - they open offices in other cities until the cost of living rises to match San Francisco (see Portland and Seattle). It's just not in California.