Its a valid target for the protestors. The tech workers have sufficient funds to become part of the existing class that supports the restrictions. Since they can't do anything about those already here they merely target those who increase the problem. The downward pressure increases as more and more people with the ability to pay the high rates move in causing prices to move up.
Face it, the protestors have a point. I have watched postings on this very site deride the suburb gated community members yet they turn around and defend the same if the setting is city based. Guarded/gated/etc condos/apartments are all fine, zoning rules forcing many to go to the suburbs to afford housing are fine, but damn if picking on techies living in the city who simple increase the problem is.
As before, they don't want YOU or THEM as neighbors so they will invent all sorts of politically correct sounding terms to insure that outcome.
There are times where it really makes sense to take zoning authority away from cities, especially when costs are demonstrably affected.
Gated suburbs are themselves NIMBY types that seek to exclude certain classes of people through politics and restrictive land use policies. Rich tech workers are generally not like this.
The secured condo building reflects the economic reality that land is expensive in San Francisco, and that housing requires security unless you like needles on the doorstep and bums pooping in your side alley. This is not hyperbole: housing in San Francisco carries a significant alley-pooping-bum risk. The only exclusion involved is a result of economic reality, and there is no way around it: someone has to be excluded from San Francisco, and you won't fix that situation by not building houses and not providing convenient transportation. That will just exclude more people. Which I think is what the protestors actually want (so long as the "right" people are excluded), but they haven't really pondered whether they are doing the right thing to achieve their distasteful ends; making them morally questionable and economically wrong.
Yes, the secured condo building is a symbol of wealth and exclusivity, just like the gated community, but to declare that these two things are essentially similar is a serious misunderstanding of the situation, probably motivated by a rich-vs-poor sort of thinking.
The secured condo building reflects the economic reality that land is expensive in San Francisco, and that housing requires security unless you like needles on the doorstep and bums pooping in your side alley. This is not hyperbole: housing in San Francisco carries a significant alley-pooping-bum risk.
So the reason people need secured condo enclaves is to avoid people of a different class.
The only exclusion involved is a result of economic reality, and there is no way around it: someone has to be excluded from San Francisco, and you won't fix that situation by not building houses and not providing convenient transportation.
Someone has to be excluded, it must certainly not be those new high paid workers colonizing the area!
Which I think is what the protestors actually want (so long as the "right" people are excluded), but they haven't really pondered whether they are doing the right thing to achieve their distasteful ends; making them morally questionable and economically wrong.
Of course, these people are protesting for their right to exclude the rich because they are mean. Losing their homes, being priced out of where they grew up, and being unable to access the new tech wealth has nothing to do with it, these protesters are just spiteful.
Yes, the secured condo building is a symbol of wealth and exclusivity, just like the gated community, but to declare that these two things are essentially similar is a serious misunderstanding of the situation, probably motivated by a rich-vs-poor sort of thinking.
When people of a higher class mobility move to a location and erect barriers physical and economic to prevent "undesireables" from living or existing there, its the same phenomenon regardless of building type.
So the reason people need secured condo enclaves is to avoid people of a different class.
Well, I guess if you put it that way, yeah: the class that leaves human waste in your alley-ways and might break into your home to steal your laptop. Everyone excludes them if they're in your neighborhood. There are plenty of historic iron bars on the windows of historic homes in San Francisco.
That is the same argument the dockers used when they marched for Enoch Powell against black emigrants in the UK back in the 60's think about what your saying this is like saying well the KK have a point about these uppity <ethnic slur>
Comments
Its a valid target for the protestors. The tech workers have sufficient funds to become part of the existing class that supports the restrictions. Since they can't do anything about those already here they merely target those who increase the problem. The downward pressure increases as more and more people with the ability to pay the high rates move in causing prices to move up.
Face it, the protestors have a point. I have watched postings on this very site deride the suburb gated community members yet they turn around and defend the same if the setting is city based. Guarded/gated/etc condos/apartments are all fine, zoning rules forcing many to go to the suburbs to afford housing are fine, but damn if picking on techies living in the city who simple increase the problem is.
As before, they don't want YOU or THEM as neighbors so they will invent all sorts of politically correct sounding terms to insure that outcome.
There are times where it really makes sense to take zoning authority away from cities, especially when costs are demonstrably affected.
Gated suburbs are themselves NIMBY types that seek to exclude certain classes of people through politics and restrictive land use policies. Rich tech workers are generally not like this.
The secured condo building reflects the economic reality that land is expensive in San Francisco, and that housing requires security unless you like needles on the doorstep and bums pooping in your side alley. This is not hyperbole: housing in San Francisco carries a significant alley-pooping-bum risk. The only exclusion involved is a result of economic reality, and there is no way around it: someone has to be excluded from San Francisco, and you won't fix that situation by not building houses and not providing convenient transportation. That will just exclude more people. Which I think is what the protestors actually want (so long as the "right" people are excluded), but they haven't really pondered whether they are doing the right thing to achieve their distasteful ends; making them morally questionable and economically wrong.
Yes, the secured condo building is a symbol of wealth and exclusivity, just like the gated community, but to declare that these two things are essentially similar is a serious misunderstanding of the situation, probably motivated by a rich-vs-poor sort of thinking.
So the reason people need secured condo enclaves is to avoid people of a different class.
Someone has to be excluded, it must certainly not be those new high paid workers colonizing the area!
Of course, these people are protesting for their right to exclude the rich because they are mean. Losing their homes, being priced out of where they grew up, and being unable to access the new tech wealth has nothing to do with it, these protesters are just spiteful.
When people of a higher class mobility move to a location and erect barriers physical and economic to prevent "undesireables" from living or existing there, its the same phenomenon regardless of building type.
Well, I guess if you put it that way, yeah: the class that leaves human waste in your alley-ways and might break into your home to steal your laptop. Everyone excludes them if they're in your neighborhood. There are plenty of historic iron bars on the windows of historic homes in San Francisco.
Are there locks on your door?
That is the same argument the dockers used when they marched for Enoch Powell against black emigrants in the UK back in the 60's think about what your saying this is like saying well the KK have a point about these uppity <ethnic slur>