Hacker News Reader

Comment by grandmczeb | Hacker News Reader

> As the article points out, the huge influx of capital in the area is being returned only to the tech sector, who merrily spend it and drive up the cost of living.

Most of the cost of living increase is due to bone-headed housing polices happily voted in by existing residents, the vast majority of which do not work in tech. I personally find it very sad that we've prioritized rewarding a tiny, vocal minority at the expense of literally everyone else, but it seems a large number of people would rather point fingers at the villian-of-the-day than change anything.

View on HN

Are the policies bone headed?

I'm not American so may not have this perfectly right but the Detroit of the past seems to be a good analogue to SV. Lots of well paid jobs in a single industry. When the eventual downturn occurs you don't want to be left with a ghost town.

Detroit is a ghost town, but the suburbs are fine. The story of Detroit is one of urban decay. Detroit's population has declined, but the metro area's population has been steadily growing. Detroit's downtown is not seeing a resurgence because there basically isn't one. It's a ton of 1950's low density housing stock.

And that housing stock overseen by a corrupt government that embezzled from the public, and a school board presided by a guy who seemingly can't write. It's a city whose politics are scarred by _multiple_ race riots.

In contrast, SV is a network of small suburban towns, all of which are happily constructing new office spaces but virtually no new housing. Rent prices are 3k USD a month, highest in the nation. An economic downturn shifts the local market from 'absurdly unaffordable' to 'merely very expensive'. And due to California's own political schemes, a permanent drop in housing prices would probably help local governments balance the books if it meant they could pay folks less while still taking in the same amount of tax revenues due to Prop 13.

CA voted in an effective freeze to property taxes back in the 1970s, with property tax increases being capped at 1% per year and the rate being transferable to your children. This has created a landed aristocracy in CA cities of those paying well less than the normal rate in taxes, badly distorting the market and local economies (no property tax, no services), resulting in lots of silly policy choices.

Detroit enjoyed ~3 generations of prosperity before declining. It would be silly to deny the opportunities provided by the tech industry and the wealth it generates to millions of people just because the area might eventually decline.

The SV policies aren't about diversification -- they are about preventing housing from being built.

To be more clear;

The lack of diversification in employment makes the residents as a whole more vulnerable to the next sector based bust (see dotcom crash).

If there is a larger supply of housing then more properties will be put on the market in such an event. This could exacerbate any fall in prices or result in a large number of abandoned properties which can be pretty damaging to a neighborhood.

We get a sort of similar effect here in Australia. A mine opens in the outback somewhere and prices rise rapidly in the nearest town(s). Then a whole heap of new housing gets built to meet the demand and make some profit. One day resource prices fall, the mines cut back on operations, and suddenly there is a housing oversupply and the whole local market falls pretty harshly.

If you were a local resident who lived there the entire time you would probably be feeling pretty shortchanged by the end.

The correct answer is probably to build some new housing supply but definitely not as much as the peak demands.

The correct answer is probably to build some new housing supply but definitely not as much as the peak demands.

Why is that? It doesn't change the fact that once the mines are gone, they're gone. The value of existing homeowner's investment has been preserved but nothing's been done to buffer the economy or help people pushed out of rentals. It's just transferring wealth to rentiers.

Diversifying the economy -- having an environment more encouraging to industry, not less -- is the right answer.

In the mining example I gave it's probably more clear cut than the SV case.

A whole heap of people are working high wage jobs in essentially the middle of nowhere. The local towns don't have the capacity to replace many lost jobs and aren't the ideal place for all of the now unemployed workers to end up. You don't want a whole heap of empty houses in an area with no jobs.

Diversifying the economy is definitely a step in the right direction and is likely more feasible in an area like SV. On the flipside you've got to be careful that the other industries are valuable in their own right and don't exist solely due to the rivers of money in the area.

> I personally find it very sad that we've prioritized rewarding a tiny, vocal minority at the expense of literally everyone else

you mean the tech industry? I mean, sure NIMBYism is a big problem but the tech industry gentrifies everything it touches.

  bone-headed housing polices happily voted in by existing residents

"Residents" have no such authority.

Cities and counties don't even have an initiative or referendum power open to residents, generally.

They do in San Francisco. There's the power of the referendum (for instance, Prop C 2016), but more importantly, there's the power of the "community review" [1], with which a dedicated neighbor can stall construction for years by forcing reviews and appeals. The rules in other Bay Area cities are slightly different in construction, but not in result.

[1] https://hoodline.com/2015/11/sf-planning-101-how-community-i...

  They do in San Francisco.

Hence the "generally". Those particular 47 square miles excluded.

  There's the power of the refererendum (for instance, Prop C)

Prop C was a charter amendment, not a referendum.

"Referendum" has a specific legal meaning in CA and is almost never used because the signature threshold is the same as for Initiative statues that you can bend however you want. Referendum takes just as much work with far less utility.

  a dedicated neighbor can stall construction for years by forcing reviews

Again a random "dedicated neighbor" has no power to "force" anything... even in SF. In SF, especially, it's money that talks.

But most communities do have an elected city council that's supposed to represent the will of the voters. In my community any attempt to build new housing results in a lot of current reidents showing up at planning meetings and complaining about how the new development will ruin their quality of life, take away street parking, and cause gridlock.

Oddly, I only know of two people in my condo associate that work in tech, and both of us support new housing, the ones that are most vocally opposed have been here for 20+ years. Ok, maybe that's not so odd, the people that have been here the longest don't want more change.

  a lot of current residents showing up at planning meetings

Do you go to such meetings? Do you watch them on cable access or view the tapes at City Hall? (Heck, into the 1990s, the only available video of San Jose city council or SCC Supervisors meetings were if we taped it ourselves.)

In reality, almost all such meetings are lightly attended at best unless a "progressive" interest group transports then in.

Almost all Bay Area city council try to portray themselves as "progressives". Even in stodgy San Jose, not one councilmember is a Republican.

Not all of them, but I go when I can. The last one I went to was packed full of neighborhood residents overwhelmingly against the development who were worried about traffic and parking. Though the development was right next to a Caltrain station, which is exactly where mid to high density development should be happening.

  The last one I went to was packed full of neighborhood residents

Please let me know the date of that meeting; I'd like to check out the tapes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com