Comment by arcticbull | Hacker News Reader

Comment by arcticbull | Hacker News Reader

After 6 years in SF, 2 at a big company, 4 at a startup that's not one anymore, it's time for me to move on also. The exodus section of the article hit on a lot of the same things that have been bothering me about SF. The individualism, the disrepair, the pee, the needles, the homeless, the mentally ill, public transit from the 60s (BART), busses that I routinely out-jog -- and that it's never anyone's problem. And that's just SF, let alone the state and federal level issues.

I had the chance to apply for a green card (just got PERM certified) but have decided that now's a good time to take a break from the valley instead. The biggest feeling of relief is that I can now take a job that isn't my primary employer (!!), found a company, build things and not face deportation as a result. It's been 6 years since I last had that opportunity -- and doing it in the US is at least a year away. Not dealing with US immigration is worth not having a concrete plan :)

Like the OP I'm also an EU [and Canadian] citizen, so I'm not lacking for places to go. Beyond those, there are so many countries that actually welcome people looking to build with open arms.

Like the OP, I'm sure I'll be back someday. For all it's faults, it's still Silicon Valley.

My experience in SV is limited to a few months stay, already a few years ago, but it's hard for me to conflate San Francisco and Silicon Valley proper (San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, Mountain View etc...).

Where San Francisco is a proper city, plagued by the many problems you mention, the actual Valley is basically suburbs, with a majority of spotless single family homes, lots of strip malls and tiny (but mostly spotless as well) city centers.

As a European, like you and the OP, I mostly felt out of place in both environments (less in SF, to be honest), I could picture living there for a few years at most, but not forever.

> Where San Francisco is a proper city, plagued by the many problems you mention, the actual Valley is basically suburb city, with a majority of spotless single family homes and tiny (but mostly spotless as well) city centers.

That's true, I completed a few internships in Cupertino and Sunnyvale, and they are different. They had too little going on for me, though, which is why I moved up to SF. And I also felt less out of place up in SF.

> I could picture living there for a few years at most, but not forever.

I've heard that from a lot of people, actually.

> I could picture living there for a few years at most, but not forever.

Everyone is doing that. It's helping the SF landlords, it's not helping the homeless.

If more people treated SF as a long-term city to put down roots, it would probably be in better shape. How you treat a place changes drastically when you actually own property there.

Instead most people make their money and leave, contributing nothing.

How would people putting down roots help the homeless? Boston is a more rooted city, and homelessness is almost as common. The constant moving only helps landlords because the city disallows anyone from building any new housing anywhere.

There is more of an incentive for a rooted community to solve the homelessness problem.

I've lived in both Boston and SF and the pervasive homelessness in SF is much much worse.

It might be one of the causes, but it's sort of naive to consider it as the main one.

SF is not the only big city with a major influx of people coming there for work, I have seen quite a few European and American major cities, but "armies" of homeless out in the open like in SF I really haven't seen anywhere else.

It's probably a mix of causes, not least the very mild climate, if I were homeless I would rather spend a winter on the streets of SF rather than in Boston or NYC, or a summer in Houston...

Never in my comment did I write or imply that it was the main one. World of difference between "probably would be in better shape" and "definitely would be perfect."

No. The rooted people are the ones causing the problem of homelessness, not solving it.

Solving the homeless problem is dead simple easy. The solution is to build more houses. Every apartment that gets built, is 1 less person being gentrified onto the streets.

The rooted people are the ones preventing developers from building more, because they don't want competition, and they want their housing prices to stay high.

Renters, are the ones getting screwed by this, because they have to pay the high rents that wouldn't exist without the artificially created barriers to entry.

Are people really being gentrified onto the streets? You really think high-functioning people are becoming homeless for want of $3000/month income to pay rent? I doubt this very much; if I became unable to pay rent in the most expensive city on the continent, I'd move to a city that costs 20% as much before I moved onto the sidewalk.

Gentrification and land use policies are real problems in SF, but homelessness I think is mostly due to addictions and mental illness, not really the lack of adequate housing.

You're not talking about rooted people in the same way I am...

I'm talking about homeowners, you're talking about landlords who charge rent.

I'm talking about people who actually live in the homes they own and have to deal with homelessness in their neighborhood.

You're talking about landlords who own lots of property in SF but go home to their mansions in Sausalito or Palo Alto.

My point exactly agrees with you. SF needs less landlords and more homeowners.

The home owners are the ones stopping new houses from being built.

Homeowners don't want their property values to go down, and want the city to be locked in time, never changing and never growing. They are the ones stopping new houses from being built.

Are you saying that SF homeowners want homeless people walking their streets? If their intention is to increase property value, as you say, why would they want that?

Seems to me like the people who win the most by limiting housing are the landlords who can collect higher rent through scarce supply.

Long term homeowners probably don't care much about yearly changes in their homes worth.

SF homeowners want their neighborhood to stay locked in time forever and pretend nothing will ever change. They want to protect the "character" of the neighborhood, by preventing all high rises and anything that isn't a single family townhouse.

They'd probably be fine with more housing being built 'somewhere else' for the homeless. But ya know, definitely not in THEIR backyard.

Developers (aka landlords) aren't the ones protesting new building being built. This is because they would love to be able to build more. Even though they would make less money per apartment, there is so much demand for houses, that the massive amount of new development would make up for it.

There is only so many landlords out there. Their vote isn't particularly significant. But there are a LOT of NIMBY homeowners.

I think you have completed misinterpreted my point to fit your preexisting bias.

My point is that homelessness severity in any given area is correlated with renter density.

Whatever homeowners you think are blocking new developments, think about the homelessness in their specific area. Is it severe?

Think about the areas in SF that have the most severe homelessness, how many homeowners do you think live in that area?

On the causes of homelessness... I don't think it's due to scarce housing. Even if there were more housing available, I doubt a homeless person could start paying for it. Getting out of homelessness is a more complex issue.

The individualism, the disrepair, the pee, the needles, the homeless, the mentally ill, public transit from the 60s (BART)

BART went online in 1972. But yeah, if individualism isn't your bag then SF's definitely not for you.

Haha, I guess I meant that was dreamed up and implemented in the 60s :) you're totally right though. That's give-or-take by the grandparents of the average tech worker who lives there now.

FWIW I'm totally in favor of income inequality; people should both want to and have the ability (social mobility) to become wealthy. I'm also, however, in favor of moving the bottom line up to a point where everyone live comfortable. Individualism should not have to come at the expense of the collective well-being -- at least not to the extent I'm seeing. I don't think that it's fair to say that I can only be wealthy at the expense of making someone live on the street; I can live with being a little less wealthy (pragmatically, the same wealth level) if it means solving social problems.

What I guess I'm trying to say is that individualism doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. After all, individuals still have to live somewhere, and it'd be better if that place didn't smell like pee ^_^

Reply on news.ycombinator.com