Hacker News Reader

Comment by davidw | Hacker News Reader

Yet another reason to make it easier for the less well-off to live in places like NY and San Francisco by building more housing.

View on HN

There is nothing magical about NYC. It's just density and transit. Not science-fiction. You can build that stuff anywhere, we just choose not to - to entertain the conservatives who think transit is a social-program and social programs are evil, to the NIMBYs who are terrified of buildings that could cast a shadow in their neighborhood, to car-commuters who refuse to accept that successful cities don't have free parking and fast traffic.

Perhaps they simply do not want to live in a "successful city," or one that is successful by this definition.

Or maybe people don't like density and transit?

Then they should stay away from cities. There are plenty of great places like Lakeview Oregon where that will not be a problem in the foreseeable future.

This is also probably a financial win for them, because a growing city means rising prices, making it easy to sell out and go live somewhere rural.

The law of supply and demand and skyrocketing prices within major cities implies that far more people want to live in such environments than currently do. Nothing wrong with the ones that don't, but the people who want that lifestyle are apparently not being accommodated by current urban policy in general.

> transit is a social-program and social programs are evil

That and racism and/or classism. Wealthier neighborhoods are afraid that a public train will be bring the poor through their neighborhoods therefore inviting crime. My friend's family who live in Arlington Texas told me how their community voted 'No' on building a sidewalk because of this very reason. A sidewalk!

http://www.citylab.com/crime/2014/12/the-myth-that-mass-tran...

I don't see anything wrong with a neighborhood democratically deciding they don't want sidewalks. Not much different than other covenants and restrictions many neighborhoods have, such as no vinyl siding, no boats parked in the driveway, etc.

Yea, but the goal was to keep "those people" (for whatever your value of "those" is) out of your neighborhood. I fail to see how that is not a discriminatory practice.

Not SF. SF is fat-friendly, by city policy. NYC is not.

What do you mean? How can a city be "fat-friendly" by policy?

San Francisco Human Rights Commission, "Compliance Guidelines To Prohibit Weight and Height Discrimination"[1]

"Medical providers must not make weight loss or weight gain related intervention a condition for treatment."

"Employers must strive to maintain a respectful, non-hostile environment related to weight and height. Verbal or written harassment against an employee based on weight or height is prohibited. Unsolicited comments, advice, or literature recommending weight loss or gain are inappropriate."

"If a tenant needs and requests an accommodation because of weight or height, it must be made if it is readily achievable. Some examples of alterations that are usually readily achievable include: installing offset hinges to widen doorways, rearranging furnishings, lowering mirrors or replacing shower doors with shower curtains. The need or potential need to make an accommodation may not be considered as a factor in the decision to select a tenant."

[1] http://sf-hrc.org/sites/sf-hrc.org/files/migrated/FileCenter...

I think I'd look at actual health outcomes as per the study, rather than policies like this, that may or may not make a difference.

Thanks. I don't necessarily see it as being "fat-friendly", they're just trying to prevent discrimination.

The "widening doorways" thing might be a bit too much unless the person in question actually has a medical condition though.

This is accomodating reality, not the cause. Nobody wants to be fat, but if the urban form means that most people living in your city are sedentary sitting in cars for a large portion of their day, being fat is an inevitable consequence of it. Fat-acceptance policies naturally fall out of that.

I can't see any reason to believe that discriminating against fat people is an effective strategy to curb obesity at a societal level.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com