> the better it is for the rest of the country - entrepreneurial talent has already started to relocate elsewhere
It's only better if they move elsewhere and refuse to vote for the same policies that caused the problems in the first place.
It's only better if they move elsewhere and refuse to vote for the same policies that caused the problems in the first place.
Perhaps a screening process is needed?
I think anyplace that wants to attract tech companies should enact both of these things. (Of course, they won't suffice if there's no other reason to move there.)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California
Alas… it has fairly strong non-complete compliance.
Somehow we've gotten into a cultural state where everyone expects the place they live to stay exactly as it is for their lifetime. It's totally implausible and destructive, but people fight for it anyways, even when it isn't in their financial interest.
> Somehow we've gotten into a cultural state where everyone expects the place they live to stay exactly as it is for their lifetime.
I think this is just human nature.
> It's totally implausible and destructive, but people fight for it anyways, even when it isn't in their financial interest.
I disagree. Simply look at Europe or historical districts in the US. Its definitely not implausible, and only destructive to new citizens who want to live there (that don't have an existing vested interest in the area).
All politics is local, as they say. If local citizens want to keep their neighborhood the same, that's up to them, and its their choice.
Probably, but I suspect we can trace the triumph of NIMBYism to the baby-boom reaching the "get off my lawn" age.
>I disagree. Simply look at Europe or historical districts in the US. Its definitely not implausible, and only destructive to new citizens who want to live there (that don't have an existing vested interest in the area).
If the area being "preserved" was limited in some way, then sure. But the reality is that new housing is simply illegal in every positive population growth city in the country. You cannot live in a city as a young person without displacing someone else because we've legislated it that way, and that's insane.
Las Vegas? To name one. High population growth. A lot of building.
Doubtful. The majority of people hate change, and that has probably always been true. A large population influx inevitably causes change, both because of the number of people and because they are always culturally different to some extent. A lot of this used to get wrapped up in nationalism/racism. See US history of prejudice against the Irish, Italians, Poles, etc etc etc. Heck, we even had legal immigration caps on Chinese people.
The Boomers might just be the first to resist changes via zoning and regulation rather than more direct action.
> the reality is that new housing is simply illegal in every positive population growth city in the country
is just not true. There's plenty of greenfield building going on in the metropolitan areas of Denver, Boise, Salt Lake City, Vegas, St. George, Phoenix, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Northern Virginia, Raleigh, Atlanta, and South Florida. These are areas that have all shown positive population growth.
I am trying to find a polite way to indicate that I find this to be a completely absurd reversal of the historical trend. Only within the last few generations, certainly within the last century, has it become so common to relocate far and/or frequently instead of most men living the whole of their lives within a day or two’s ride of their childhood home.
Read Albion's Seed -- the Borderers/Scotch-Irish were poor and exiled, following the model you describe, but the Cavaliers were both downwardly-mobile and eager to create ideological utopias, and the Puritans and Quakers were just looking for places to build utopia -- they were doing well enough economically back in England.
1. Their children won't be able to continue to live in the area once they become adults (unless they get lucky with a high-income job).
2. If they ever want to down-size and move into a smaller house or apartment after retirement, it won't be economically viable since the smaller place will still be expensive. The only way to adjust to a fixed income is to relocate.
Most communities don't do this. It's endemic to California due to the legislation noted in the article. It's rational for Mountain View to restrict housing and promote office space because it's the only way it can afford to keep tax revenue high enough to provide public services.
This is to be expected when you have no defined benefit/pension plans in the US anymore, very few people saved enough for retirement on their own, your social security benefit is anemic, and your home is your most valuable asset. One might argue everyone should save more (they should!), but that's of course going to drag GDP down (can't win).
YMMV. Frankly, I feel like we've brought this on as a country ourselves. Dog eat dog catches up.
Increased supply is likely the cause of a lot of the demand (jobs + cheap housing nationally) so cutting supply only seems maliciously harmful and not directly in anyone's interest.
You move to SF despite land costs. You move other places because of it.
(Which I agree is probably not a primary driver of housing problems in the Bay area, but geographic constraints make bad policy a lot worse)