Because the downtown area is in the flight path to nearby Mineta San Jose International Airport, there is a height limit for buildings in the downtown area, which is under the final approach corridor to the airport. The height limit is dictated by local ordinances, driven by the distance from the runway and a slope defined by Federal Aviation Administration regulations. Core downtown buildings are limited to approximately 300 feet (91 m) but can get taller farther from the airport.[80]
The rest of the article did a good job of arguing that housing prices harm migration and contribute to income inequality. But twisting a fact like that makes me suspicious. Hopefully fault lies with Matt Yglesias, not the author.
Yglesias' style is generally this kind of slapdash big-claim making sensationalism. He's basically an opinion writer who cherry picks a few facts to try to support his hypotheses. For example, see the reviews of the book mentioned in the article on amazon: http://www.amazon.com/The-Rent-Too-Damn-High-ebook/dp/B0078X...
To be fair to him though, its a hard line to walk when you are discussing the kind of complex open-ended issues which he does. I think his writing has done good to stir up thinking and provoke responses on some of the issues he discusses.
For example, see the reviews of the book mentioned in the article on amazon
He got lots of bad reviews because he pissed off some right-wing folks who showed up in droves to write bad reviews about the book out of spite, not because they'd actually read it or thought about it:
The subject of his competence came up (not by me) and as someone familiar with his writings I attempt to contribute both my own view (based on a good understanding of his work and not one sided) and a link to others views. I'm not sure what in this is wrong.... I can see you like the guy - perhaps you'd like to explain why?
I just pointed out that the bad reviews were not there because a lot of people disliked his book after reading it and considering what he had to say, but because a lot of people were angry at him and found that writing nasty reviews was a good way of venting their rage.
Can you explain how you think it is twisted? It doesn't seem to me that 'why' matters in this case - the article didn't seem to say 'San Jose has introduced zoning limits in an attempt to price out poor people', but 'San Jose has restrictive building limits that price out poor people because they are unable to meet demand'. You could perhaps add a little detail by changing it to say 'the city doesn't have any buildings with more than 27 stories' but that doesn't really feel like a big difference to me.
I have not read the Washington Monthly much in many years. When I did, it seemed to me that they had a bad habit of picking one one aspect of a situation, explaining everything by it, and wrapping it all up with a QED at the end of five pages. It made for very satisfying reading, but eventually doubts would set in.
Comments
A nitpick on San Jose:
The city’s tallest building, Yglesias notes, is a mere twenty-two stories high.
Anyone who lives in San Jose can tell you why this is the case. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Jose,_California#Arts_and_a...
Because the downtown area is in the flight path to nearby Mineta San Jose International Airport, there is a height limit for buildings in the downtown area, which is under the final approach corridor to the airport. The height limit is dictated by local ordinances, driven by the distance from the runway and a slope defined by Federal Aviation Administration regulations. Core downtown buildings are limited to approximately 300 feet (91 m) but can get taller farther from the airport.[80]
The rest of the article did a good job of arguing that housing prices harm migration and contribute to income inequality. But twisting a fact like that makes me suspicious. Hopefully fault lies with Matt Yglesias, not the author.
Lazy research - they probably googled "tallest building in San Jose", went to the first result, then forgot to sort by floors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Sa...
Yglesias' style is generally this kind of slapdash big-claim making sensationalism. He's basically an opinion writer who cherry picks a few facts to try to support his hypotheses. For example, see the reviews of the book mentioned in the article on amazon: http://www.amazon.com/The-Rent-Too-Damn-High-ebook/dp/B0078X...
To be fair to him though, its a hard line to walk when you are discussing the kind of complex open-ended issues which he does. I think his writing has done good to stir up thinking and provoke responses on some of the issues he discusses.
He got lots of bad reviews because he pissed off some right-wing folks who showed up in droves to write bad reviews about the book out of spite, not because they'd actually read it or thought about it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/06/andrew-breitbart-fa...
Discussions of the propriety of his comments are probably best left to other web sites, and kept off of this one.
The subject of his competence came up (not by me) and as someone familiar with his writings I attempt to contribute both my own view (based on a good understanding of his work and not one sided) and a link to others views. I'm not sure what in this is wrong.... I can see you like the guy - perhaps you'd like to explain why?
I just pointed out that the bad reviews were not there because a lot of people disliked his book after reading it and considering what he had to say, but because a lot of people were angry at him and found that writing nasty reviews was a good way of venting their rage.
Actually if you sort by height, the tallest building does have 22 floors. The building with the most floors isn't the tallest
Ya, you are right, he was accurate in what he wrote. It just read oddly because there are buildings with more than 22 floors.
Why sort by floors? "Tallest" means height.
Can you explain how you think it is twisted? It doesn't seem to me that 'why' matters in this case - the article didn't seem to say 'San Jose has introduced zoning limits in an attempt to price out poor people', but 'San Jose has restrictive building limits that price out poor people because they are unable to meet demand'. You could perhaps add a little detail by changing it to say 'the city doesn't have any buildings with more than 27 stories' but that doesn't really feel like a big difference to me.
I have not read the Washington Monthly much in many years. When I did, it seemed to me that they had a bad habit of picking one one aspect of a situation, explaining everything by it, and wrapping it all up with a QED at the end of five pages. It made for very satisfying reading, but eventually doubts would set in.