Comment by freyr | Hacker News Reader

Comment by freyr | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

On the one hand, you have established residents pushing back against expansion, construction, and denser housing -- perhaps to preserve what they value in their community, or perhaps out of personal interest and to drive up their property values.

On the other, you have a massive influx of tech workers who have convinced themselves that they must live in this small, overpriced city for their basic livelihood, and that the city should rapidly rebuild itself to accommodate them.

There's entitlement on both sides.

Could San Francisco have higher population density to accommodate the recent surge in housing demand? Sure. It already has the second highest population density in the U.S., but it could be denser. But the truth is there's no way to guarantee affordable housing for everyone who decides they would like to live in a small, in-demand city on the tip of a tiny peninsula. There will always be people who can't afford it.

> But I'm not so entitled as to think that my occaisional aesthetic pleasure is more important than someone else's basic livelihood.

No, but you're entitled enough to think that a city should be rebuilt to accommodate your livelihood, rather than your livelihood determining where you can reasonably afford to live. You're entitled enough to think you must live in SF, and you shouldn't have to consider living somewhere more affordable. If you can barely make ends meet and can't see your kids because you're commute is so long, why subject yourself to that?

As much as I'd like San Francisco's housing prices to come down, I also think rebuilding should be done responsibly and not rushed to accommodate a relatively recent surge in demand.

Man "entitlement" is such a weird word, and such a weird way to frame the issue. There are property owners who would like to build on their own property, not hurting anyone. And being told they're not allowed to because rich people like the aesthetic. There's poor people being priced out of their own city because of this. Who's entitled?

And this is hardly the first time a US city has experienced growth.

Yes, it's somewhat a matter of perspective.

Although I'd point out that it's not just rich people who appreciate San Francisco's aesthetic.

But of course it's rich people who are prioritizing it above affordable housing.

Have you met poor people who care about vertical zoning laws in San Francisco or are you just assuming they exist and speaking for them?

Are you suggesting there's no gray area between rich and poor?

I appreciate San Francisco's aesthetic, and I'm not rich. Many of my friends appreciate San Francisco's aesthetic, and they're not rich. Many tourists come to San Francisco every day to admire the city's aesthetic. I don't think you read my statement very well.

You'd expect property owners to be entitled to build on their titled property, yet somehow this has turned into a pejorative.

It reminds me of people arguing for higher taxes accusing others of being selfish. Yes, it's completely selfish that someone would like to keep the money they've earned and yet completely selfless that you feel you have a right to it.

Down and down we go into opposite land.

> Yes, it's completely selfish that someone would like to keep the money they've earned

Well yeah. The very concept of ownership is inherently selfish. It means you want there to be a particular set of resources you get to use, and no one else. It's pretty much the definition of selfishness.

Not that I think this is a bad thing, but if you're trying to argue with this particular rhetorical framing, you're going to lose hard.

How is it not equally selfish for someone to claim they are entitled to other peoples' money?

Because it's more selfish?

Not at all because it's not "I am entitled to your money" but "everyone's entitled to everyone's money".

Until you have a property system there is no "other people's" stuff.

Well we do have a property system so what are you trying to say?

That expecting there to be "your stuff" is already inherently selfish, so trying to argue that particular reallocations of "your stuff" are selfish is kind of ridiculous.

And now we are back where we started, with why is it selfish for me to claim it, but not you? Without property rights, no one has any right to anything and the world would be anarchy.

There is nothing selfish about property rights. If you make something, and want to use it, that's not selfish. If someone else comes and demands you give it to them instead, that is selfish.

> Not that I think this is a bad thing, but if you're trying to argue with this particular rhetorical framing, you're going to lose hard.

I think you missed the other half of the sentence:

> and yet completely selfless that you feel you have a right to [the money someone else earned]

The other half of the sentence only makes sense within a property system. My point is that the very act of saying "That's mine, you can't have it" is already incredibly selfish.

Taken to this extreme (wherein private property is selfish), human life is selfish. In living, you consume resources that no one else can use. As such, arguing that reallocation of your life (e.g. your death or enslavement) is selfish would be ridiculous.

"entitlements" as used as a framing for this issue boils down essentially to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

Out of many fallacies, this one is among the top 5 I consider most insidious. By taking advantage of our collective desire for compromise, the un-empathetic, even the sociopathic, can appear reasonable, or at least as reasonable as the side they're vilifying. "No, brah, both sides are wrong! Let's get to that middle ground, which just so happens to allow me to trample upon other human beings!"

> There are property owners who would like to build on their own property, not hurting anyone.

If they are impairing their neighbors' views, it seem pretty obvious they are actually hurting someone. San Franacisco has already experienced the extreme: Charles Crocker's spite fence on Nob Hill.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spite_fence#San_Francisco

"Ownership of a view" is a pretty dubious argument. It amounts to no being allowed to construct anything anywhere because it will always change someone's view. A taller building is not the same as a spite fence, at all.

If someone pays $X million for a house in San Francisco with a view, you can assume it will hurt when an affordable-living highrise is constructed next door that blocks their view.

Now, perhaps the happiness of the people who live in that highrise and get a spectacular view at a government-mandated affordable price outweighs the pain of the individual who paid market price. But somebody got hurt.

I argued below that "ownership of a view" is a dubious claim. Taken too far and it amounts to no one being allowed to build anything, anywhere. Which sadly has become the norm in most places, see NIMBYism.

I'd be willing to consider a compromise where developers compensate neighbors for whatever market value is lost from their construction. That seems fair. But even that assumes that the owners had a "right" to the view to begin with, or some kind of ownership over it. Which seems kind of absurd.

It also assumes that new development necessarily hurts property values, which isn't true either. Development usually increases the value.

> and that the city should rapidly rebuild itself to accommodate them.

On the contrary, the city should rapidly rebuild to accommodate the current residents that the tech workers would otherwise displace. Building benefits everyone, but lower income residents benefit the most.

The city of San Francisco doesn't need to accommodate anyone, they simply need to get out of the way to let others do it.

If you're going by incorporated municiple.... SF is something like 21 on the list.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com