Hacker News Reader

Comment by dangjc | Hacker News Reader

I'm in the bay area, and the main thing that is expensive is housing. Groceries are cheap. Eating and drinking out are the same as other cities. To help the middle class, remove restrictive zoning policies. It's a uniquely American problem because these policies were the product of racism. Requiring single family homes kept out poorer, usually black, renters.

View on HN

Err... you may want to visit some more US cities. Eating and drinking out is definitely cheaper in Chicago, San Diego, Boston. Heck, lunch is cheaper in many parts of Manhattan than Soma.

In fact, it has to be that way given the housing/cost structure of the Bay Area and its ripple effects: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/dining/san-francisco-rest...

Yeah SOMA is quite pricey. I live in the East Bay though and I find prices out here are comparable to the rest of America for food and drinks. Even in SF, once you get away from central areas, prices are pretty ok.

How is eating and drinking cheap in the Bay Area? A $4.25 latte with tips and taxes easily adds up to $6.50-7.00. That's a lot of just a cup of latte.

Add to that imminent price increases due to impending minimum wage hike in SF in July.

It's a uniquely American problem because these policies were the product of racism

So America is the only racist country?

I think the above poster could've phrased it more clearly.

While European countries would've been racist as well, it was uniquely American to have, in the country, such a large number of the people they were racist towards. If there's not many people the racist policy would have an effect on, it isn't going to have much of an effect at all.

I visit SF periodically and my experience has been that eating out is at least twice as expensive as PDX. I spend more on eating breakfast in SF than I spend eating dinner out in PDX, it's crazy. Even groceries seemed 1.5x more expensive when I did some shopping down there.

How is it a product of racism? I always assumed it was due to the city's constituents wanting to protect their real estate invesments

Lot sizes in suburbs were (are?) intentionally large to keep out "those" people from purchasing property, further reducing supply.

How is not wanting poor people and criminals in your neighborhood racist? It seems like a normal desire to me

You should listen to this podcast: https://overcast.fm/+F_9GH_Hp0

It is very much a product of racism. Check out the book “The Color of Law” that covers this issue extensively, and even beginning with the Bay Area.

Anecdotally, when my parents bought their house in the east bay, it came with old (now invalid) covenants that literally said no black people could live there unless they were servants. The house was built in the 40s!

A simple Google search on Redlining (https://www.google.com/search?q=new+york+times+redlining) will reveal how current housing laws and massive wealth transfer that interest mortgage deduction is from less fortunate to the wealthy. There is a near unanimity among economists that housing subsidies are a bad policy and exacerbate rent seeking behavior. If not racist, those policies are downright classist (the line can be very blurry), designed to keep a small minority of homeowners (akin to landed gentry) in power.

I agree that the motivations are primarily driven by investment protection/greed. I am failing to see the racist aspect to it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com