California's problem isn't space. It's NIMBY. CA's gone so NIMBY that regulations stifle the younger generation's ability to build and buy their homes. My wife and I went to open houses this weekend. Young Berkeley professors can't afford to live where they work. Young teachers can't afford to live where they work. This sort of thing is a societal recipe for disaster.
(Long, but consider this a documentary on how NIMBY has affected housing in California, from the POV of a cool landlord.
Or are you suggesting that people build homes and don’t send their kids to school?
I am ready for the assault of downvotes if it means the right questions are asked.
One average home is 4 people. 2 cars. 2 kids. 2 incomes. 40% of it goes to various taxes. Dense over crowded cities. Overcrowded schools. Kids need tutoring because everyone wants their kids to succeed. 2 hour commutes. Baby sitting and child care. More water. More gas. More pollution. More public services. Same or smaller roads as bicycles and walkable roads become important. Less shopping as space is used for homes and people travel outside more and shopping dollars go out of the city. Less open spaces and nature. People start traveling for vacations and relaxation. More outflow without a balanced local economy. More service people needed for the high tech income earning population. But unaffordable for lower tiers for income.
Break this down for me. How is high density sustainable? Seriously ..how? Having a house isn’t everything. Living involves many other things.
Higher densities are clearly sustainable. We have historical precedent for higher densities than San Francisco. (Resulting in exceptional, vibrant communities.) Futurists envision (and quantify) ways this planet alone could sustain approaching a trillion.
Kids need tutoring because everyone wants their kids to succeed
Higher densities mean lower housing prices. Lower housing prices mean teachers and professors can actually live where they work. Lower housing prices mean creatives, craftspeople, artists, and diverse people can keep living locally.
Is the higher density in SF bring all those supposed promised sustainablity benefits?
The housing density in SF is held at lower levels than the market equilibrium. The result is miserable, because the density is artificially low for the current market.
Paint that picture for me, please.
Of course that's a broken causal chain and obvious straw man. You have to start out with more and cheaper housing. Economic analyses indicate we could build a huge amount more housing, and people would snap it up. Build enough to actually bring the housing prices down, and yes, there would be a much more vibrant and diverse city life. (But the market has to follow this naturally. Legislating prices lower will have the opposite effect.)
As far as cities being "sustainable" -- cities draw resources to themselves. That's simply how it works. Sustainability is something that only matters in the economy as a whole. Cities need not be locally sustainable to generate wealth and to be a positive benefit to society.
Paint that picture for me, please.
New York City in the past. Houston in its run up to becoming the 4th largest metropolitan area in the US. Chicago in the past as well. San Francisco is artificially held back from the density the market in other cities have achieved.
You completely disagree with much of the academic output of the past 75 years of modern geography. (Urban geography is as much economics and social science as 19th century geographic mapping.) Perhaps you should take your views into the field and revolutionize it?
Perhaps I will. Thanks for the suggestion.
Let me know when you do, so I can get out the popcorn. It will be entertaining, I'm sure.
The question really is how is 'low density' sustainable. Can you point me to an agrarian area that has lasted for thousands of years, with continuous occupation, and continuous economic prosperity (or at least no long periods of economic destitution)?
I don't think you can.
On the other hand, humanity has countless examples of the sustainability of high-density cities. I can name off the top of my head many cities that have successfully housed humans with high density for thousands upon thousands of years:
1. Rome 2. Cairo 3. Chengdu 4. Baghdad 5. Bukhara 6. London 7. Mexico City/Tenochtitlan 8. Tokyo
> Don’t you think it’s connected?
Yes. Low density housing decreases access to education by requiring extra costs to achieve the same ends. All the civilizations listed above managed not only to house people, but also to educate them, hence retaining the prominence they held thousands of years ago to the present day.
The issue is not enough high density housing. Having lived in some of the cities listed above, San Francisco feels like living in the country side. Do not respond by asking how high density is working in San Francisco. San Francisco is not high density. It acts as if it is a moderately sized city when it really ought to be a metropolis.
This is also not an issue of taxation, as several of those cities have much lower tax rates than California. I am a libertarian at heart, so I am for lower taxes. However, it is a mistake to think California's high taxes are because of high-density. California's high taxes are a response to the need to pay for the externalities caused by low-density housing. For example, road maintenance, bus systems, etc are all much cheaper to run if people live closer together.
Moreover, the schools fail not because of the density in housing but because of the lack of competition to drive prices down. Catholic schools in the inner city do a better job at turning out students than public schools, despite having broadly similar student bases (In terms of socioeconomics) and spending much less per student (limiting myself to Catholic schools because they have the lowest average tuition among private schools by far). I believe the average inner-city Catholic school class size is actually larger than the corresponding public school. Historically speaking of course, large classes were the norm. Sowell details the issues of public schooling in his book 'Education in America'. If you think California needs money to fix its schooling, I highly recommend that book.
The problem is not low density. The problem is sprawl.
The solution is not high density and shaming people NIMBY or coerced altruism but cooperation. Giving people incentive to cooperate and share in return for something of non material value would work better than worsening quality of life for the productive and working folks.
High density can also be sustainable. Paris is a good example but it has public transport and its shaped like a snail. It would also mean segregation of regions according to income and ameneties.
Also..I can’t give you any example because no system lasts for ‘thousands’ of years.
I am rejecting your high density sustainable cities list but when I get the time, I will do my own research and if I am wrong in my intuition that you are off mark, I will certainly come back to you with it.
Again. You are wrong about low density meaning less education dollars. In California, we have a funding formula by which all the money goes to a common pot and then redistributed. The formula ...to put it simplistically...assigns more money to school districts with kids who need free lunches, English as second language etc. so this means counties that contribute less tax dollars and less property tax dollars due to low house prices get more of the education dollars. Highly educated households and English speaking households and those are higher income where kids don’t rely on school lunches get less education dollars.
This leads to no money for infrastructure improvements or overcrowding in schools and budget cuts. And yet..it’s these high property priced areas that have a higher influx of school kids. It’s not working.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/fd/ec/documents/currentexpense1718...
Per student expense allocation in affluent cities is less than in areas that have lower property values. No child is truly left behind in California when it comes to education at least as far as $ redistribution is concerned.
The problems we have cannot be resolved by high density building in Bay Area and LA.
You reject the history of the world?
> Also..I can’t give you any example because no system lasts for ‘thousands’ of years.
Yes, they do. Humans have numerous examples of sustainable systems. The Japanese are well known for several businesses that have lasted over 1000 years. The English have their own share of institutions that have lasted centuries. Of course, institutions like the church have lasted two thousand documented years. Humans know how to build to last, but it's a matter of following the wisdom of the ages.
> The solution is not high density and shaming people NIMBY or coerced altruism but cooperation
Coerced altruism? We currently have coerced ruralism! San Francisco is not built the way it is because developers and property owners want it. The government of San Fracisco places artificial limits on what can be built. It's one thing to not want to upgrade your own home, but currently, the city allows your neighbor to tell you hwat you can do with your property. If you want to build higher density, your property improvement plans are subject to a hearing of your neighbors and neighborhood. This is ridiculous. People should be free to do what they want so the free market can work, and we should not be coercing them to maintain an untenable status quo.
> This leads to no money for infrastructure improvements or overcrowding in schools and budget cuts. And yet..it’s these high property priced areas that have a higher influx of school kids. It’s not working.
There's no such thing as overcrowding. People have been educated in large classes for many many years. The issue is a lack of focus on education and academics in the schooling system. The American school system completely lacks rigor, and teachers tend to come from the lowest ends of their educational cohort (test scores of teachers are among the lowest when compared with other groups)>
property rights are important. If they are not respected, the state has more control over your property than you do. Immediate neighbours have the right to expectation of privacy and impact of new development
I honestly cannot have a discussion with someone who says ‘there is no such thing as overcrowding’. This is the end for me. Have a good rest of the day.
I suspect you are using some popular misconceptions in place of actual knowledge of urban geography, history, and economics. (Not that I'm such an expert. Basically, I took Geography 101 and remembered the 20th century segment.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_companies
> I honestly cannot have a discussion with someone who says ‘there is no such thing as overcrowding’. This is the end for me. Have a good rest of the day.
You are most excellent at strawmanning, sir/madam! I didn't say there is no such thing as overcrowding, merely that San Francisco and LA are not anywhere near the levels of density normally seen in other major cities, such as London, New York, Tokyo, Hong Kong, and other cities of the same importance.
But the tragedy of the commons is that the system becomes over burdened. It will collapse.
"My songs are of time and distance. The sadness is in you." -- Wintermute
Distance is time. Time is money.
It makes sense that the Bay area would be priced high given its tremendous desirability (which may be tapering off now). If people are willing to work there for low wages, then that is their choice - they have opted into a tradeoff they are OK with, and they/others should not demonize those who were already there and want to preserve their culture/way of life/standards of living. There are numerous affordable places to live in the US that are not [New York, San Francisco, Seattle, etc.] - you may not have every big city amenity you want, or maybe even be able to do the exact job you want - but such compromises are also just a regular part of life, aren't they?
To me the reframing of this issue as a generational war, or a rich versus poor thing, or use of pejoratives like "NIMBY" serves to distract from the plain truth, which is simply that people are acting in their own self-interests. And yes, this includes the folks who believe they have an unalienable right to live in the Bay area.
It's not actually in people's self interest. A society that creates severe divisions courts social unrest. Perceptions of relative status are directly linked to social unrest and lawlessness. This is operating in people at a level below consciousness, and the evolutionary roots of it probably predate human language.
Of course, no one has an "unalienable right to live in the Bay area." This is technically correct. However, it's still pretty crappy if the Bay Area prices-out everyone except for techies living there. Just because you can buy it, doesn't mean you should. Just because you can keep it for yourself, doesn't mean you necessarily should.
This statement is basically proof that you really don't understand where I'm coming from. (Which is exacerbated by your quaint and highly inaccurate ideas about urban geography.) Property rights are indeed fundamental. Resisting market forces is as wise as resisting the tide -- do it at your peril, or if you have considerable resources and know what you're doing. (So usually, no!)
That said, market forces don't dictate morality, laws of physics, and fundamentals of human psychology. There are other things out there to be concerned about. An overly narrow focus on the market and what money entitles you to may well cause you to miss important implications.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/09/martin-shkrelis-legacy-shapi...
Society has to work together as a whole. All the different segments of society have to be accorded a certain level of dignity. Otherwise, one endangers the civility and mutual trust necessary for economic transactions to happen reliably. Dividing society too much according to wealth, generational, and demographic lines creates more opportunities for groupthink and division.
There is a point where "separate but equal" loses its luster, after all.
There is a desire to cut down those wanting to fly high. The ‘Tall Poppy’ syndrome.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome
[..]The tall poppy syndrome describes aspects of a culture where people of high status are resented, attacked, cut down, strung up or criticised because they have been classified as superior to their peers. The term has been used in cultures of the English-speaking world.[..]
[..]The concept originates from accounts in Herodotus' Histories (Book 5, 92f), Aristotle's Politics (1284a), and Livy's Ab Urbe Condita Libri, Book I.
[Periander] had sent a herald to Thrasybulus and inquired in what way he would best and most safely govern his city. Thrasybulus led the man who had come from Periander outside the town, and entered into a sown field. As he walked through the wheat, continually asking why the messenger had come to him from Cypselus, he kept cutting off all the tallest ears of wheat which he could see, and throwing them away, until he had destroyed the best and richest part of the crop. Then, after passing through the place and speaking no word of counsel, he sent the herald away. When the herald returned to Cypselus, Periander desired to hear what counsel he brought, but the man said that Thrasybulus had given him none. The herald added that it was a strange man to whom he had been sent, a madman and a destroyer of his own possessions, telling Periander what he had seen Thrasybulus do. Periander, however, understood what had been done, and perceived that Thrasybulus had counselled him to slay those of his townsmen who were outstanding in influence or ability; with that he began to deal with his citizens in an evil manner.
— Herodotus, The Histories, Book 5, 92-f[..]
No disagreement there either.
The tall poppy syndrome describes aspects of a culture where people of high status are resented, attacked, cut down, strung up or criticised because they have been classified as superior to their peers.
Don't merely rail against your haters, when there are ways of converting them into your allies. Does blame only flow in one direction here?
But many don’t and they chose Bay Area because they want to...see the key word? ‘Want’? You are saying that the vulnerable society’s ‘want’ is weighted more than the non vulnerable section of society.
Why? I do this all the time. I call it the ‘Five Whys’ method. If you can answer five consecutive ‘Why’s ..issue will clarify.
(Tangential: One of the best musicians I know took great pains to move to SF, for artistic reasons. He took great pains to move away from Stockton. I think I'll ask him about your observation above.)
You are saying that the vulnerable society’s ‘want’ is weighted more than the non vulnerable section of society.
Incorrect. What I'm saying is that causing the de-facto division of society into separate castes is a recipe for social disaster.
https://www.wired.com/story/how-silicon-valley-fuels-an-info...
In addition to markets, there are certain wired-in facts about human psychology. Perceived relative status, if the gap is too wide to let people feel dignified, directly causes social unrest. It's just not smart for the segment of society that controls resources to let that situation come about. That's just how people work. The psychological and social science research on this is clear.
Why? I do this all the time. I call it the ‘Five Whys’ method. If you can answer five consecutive ‘Why’s ..issue will clarify.
My hunch is that you've strawmanned your particular whys. Judging from other parts of this thread, I would probably agree with all of your answers and conclusions, yet I still come to a different conclusion.
Dignity is not about living in the Bay Area. Those who live in Bay Area and in nice homes may even suffer indiginities at work that facilitated their status.
The psychological and social study is actually not clear. We don’t have true poverty in this corner of our western world like in India or Bangladesh or in some places in Africa etc. So..yea..perspective. We have relative poverty. Cupertino folks are poorer than those in Atherton. Hayward is poorer than Cupertino. Visalia is poorer than Hayward. There will always be hierarchies. There are enough studies to back that tho’.. And hierarchies are important. They are the furnaces from where societies are tempered.
Making assumptions is easy. None of us can be saviours of others. We can only be saviours of ourselves. It’s ok not to be a super hero in our story. We don’t even have to be hero’s. I would rather that we aspire not to be villains. But again..that pesky thing called free will. So there’s that..
Relative poverty, specifically, is what causes social unrest. (Perhaps here is another hole in your social sciences education?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3XYHPAwBzE
There will always be hierarchies. There are enough studies to back that tho’.. And hierarchies are important. They are the furnaces from where societies are tempered.
I am also pro-meritocracy. Pareto is as widespread as the normal distribution. Sure. I'm also down with the idea that different groups will know different things and so will have vastly different outcomes in the economy. Thomas Sowell is a personal hero of mine, and I own and am working through something like 5 of his books.
I would rather that we aspire not to be villains. But again..that pesky thing called free will. So there’s that..
Octavia Butler's viewpoint in her books generally, but especially in the Parable of the Sower series, is valuable for its observation that much of human conflict is determined below the level of consciousness. Society can't ignore those forces, precisely because they can override conscious rationality and are powerful enough to tear even the most powerful societies apart.
Principles are important. However, we are not creatures of pure rationality. If a society tries to live as such, purely on principles, it will fail. Probably through its elites becoming out of touch. California to a T, through and through.
So I am confused why you’d bring that up..unless you support the measures above. When free market forces take over, things will fall into place.
Further, there is also nothing wrong with social unrest. We don’t live in a vacuum where everything is frozen. Social unrest leads to paradigm shifting changes in society. This is why things change and don’t stay the same for ‘thousands of years’.
Go attempt to protect society from social unrest is symptomatic of a saviour complex that is irresponsible and dangerous.
Milton Friedman was my thesis subject in college. I get Thomas Sowell too. I just don’t understand your stance.
Octavia Butler didn’t finish the Parable series. Writer’s block. Maybe there was a reason why..badly plotted.
You say: ‘Principles are important’. True. But your principles are important only to you. I may define mine differently.
We are not rational animals but we are all ‘rationalising’ creatures. I don’t see the relevance either bring to this discussion.
I would be for that.
Further, there is also nothing wrong with social unrest. We don’t live in a vacuum where everything is frozen. Social unrest leads to paradigm shifting changes in society. This is why things change and don’t stay the same for ‘thousands of years’.
Sure. The violent kind, no one should need in the USA in 2019.
Go attempt to protect society from social unrest is symptomatic of a saviour complex that is irresponsible and dangerous.
Keeping violence out of society is simply a good idea. You can't have commerce and markets without order. Giving people the opportunity for the pursuit of happiness is a good idea. Everything which is the "fabric of life" should be within the means of everyman and everywoman. I think this should be achievable in the free market. The organizations and forces which dominate society have a practical obligation to provide such things. Historically, it's a good way to make money. Also, the disappearance of true everyman/everywoman activities and goods seems to be associated with dying industries trying to hold on by raising prices.
I think you and I would agree that giving stuff away would create more problems than it would solve. That's not what I'm proposing here. Also, saviors are dangerous. The real ones wield power in a more concentrated form than is wise.
I just don’t understand your stance.
Markets aren't the be-all end-all. They're just a tool. Everyone in business should be biased towards getting ahead by creating delight and avoiding resentment. On one level, that's just good brand management. On another level, the dignity of all levels of society is necessary for a long lasting, healthy society. Powerful people all working together informally and voluntarily towards this end are the hallmark of the healthiest societies.
You say: ‘Principles are important’. True. But your principles are important only to you. I may define mine differently.
Making sure large swathes of the public don't feel put upon is something to keep in mind as well. Principles may not be important at all, to minds taken by instincts more deeply rooted than rationality. Like the status calculations of young men and women who decide they no longer have a stake in society.
We are not rational animals but we are all ‘rationalising’ creatures. I don’t see the relevance either bring to this discussion.
You seem to be biased towards prioritizing only principles, rationality, and markets. Those are great, but they don't cover everything.
1. No one is going to get violent because they can’t find housing in the Bay Area. 2. Violence is a very expensive endeavor for human beings. It extracts lives, property and depletes resources. Most human beings avoid violence unless they have nothing to lose. This is what happens in war torn areas. 3. People MOVE when resources become scarce. That’s why America is made of immigrants. From the time it was formed, people MOVED in from places that got too crowded or when resources became thin. Trying to cram everyone into one tiny desirable geographically area in California is exactly the opposite of what to do to avoid violence due to social unrest. 4. This is a land of opportunity. People TAKE opportunities. Spoon feeding and force feeding after the threat of malnutrition is not the same as offering a plentiful plate of food. There is ‘fabric of life’ beyond certain zip codes in California. 5. Asking property owners to give up quality of life and environment for higher density homes with minimal benefit to them is most definitely asking them to GIVE UP something. 6. There is dignity outside certain zip codes in California. This is bordering on nonsensical now. I fail to understand the import of your communication. We have a hot housing market where people below a certain earning potential are priced out. And there is theatrics all over. News flash: This happens everywhere in the world. Every single decade. Only in California is this about loss of dignity and potential for violence and obligation of retired old folks to give up their homes for high density while on fixed incomes because someone just out of college can’t afford a mortgage. 7. No. We can’t cram everyone who wants to live in the most desirable zip codes in California because that means they lose dignity. 8. And no. We can’t make everyone happy. We can’t make everyone feel not resentful. We can’t control how people feel about their entitlements or inadequacies or whatever. The best we can do is NOT enable it. Bringing this to a conclusion. No. We are built out. Some of us want quality of life. Some of us don’t. Some of us can afford to live where we desire. Some of us can’t. And there is a whole lot of us in between the book end choices.
Sometimes it’s better NOT to act outside one’s sphere of influence. If you feel that more people need to move in a low density area, feel free to demolish your home and built multiple dwellings in it. Maybe you can evangelize your position and convince others. Be the change you want to see, but don’t expect others to be the change you are unable to create yourself. It doesn’t say so in the rulebook of life. It has only three things: Welcome. Live. Die. You can define that any way you want and find meaning in it for yourself only.
More professors are radicalizing kids, and there are even examples of indoctrination of children at grade school levels documented. There are more campus
2. Violence is a very expensive endeavor for human beings.
There is an expansion of the amount of it committed by the Far Left in the US for the past several years. Before Christchurch, the Far Left had doubled the death toll of the Far right for the past two.
Trying to cram everyone into one tiny desirable geographically area in California is...
A part of how cities create wealth. The economic activity of SF would be expanded by taking up the difference in density between it and NYC.
5. Asking property owners to give up quality of life and environment for higher density homes with minimal benefit to them is most definitely asking them to GIVE UP something.
Is not asking them to give up quality of life. They could also move, by your same logic. Having more money, this would be far easier for them than for people working in restaurants and assistant professors and teachers.
Your "Asking property owners to give up quality of life" is actually rich and powerful people manipulating laws to stymie growth and market forces.
6. There is dignity outside certain zip codes in California.
Is there dignity in being forced to move away from one's home? It depends.
7. No. We can’t cram everyone who wants to live in the most desirable zip codes in California
We have historical precedents that indicate we can have about 30% more.
We can’t control how people feel about their entitlements or inadequacies or whatever.
We can avoid obvious rigged games and broken markets. Those things stick out like a sore thumb as something unfair.
How so? It's surely a local recipe for disaster. But there's nothing preventing young professors and teachers from leaving the area (or the state) and finding jobs elsewhere where housing is cheaper.
What is so special about teachers that they have an expectation of walking across the street to their place of work?
Everyone commutes. Everyone.
This expectation of living next to where you work is exactly why we have a housing density problem. Instead of focusing on public transport to make commute painless ..we are stuffing people like sardines in a can with talking points crafted by housing activists who are mostly grant funded non profits and public agencies. More homes in expensive areas serve tax coffers in Sacramento. Not the public.
And can afford special busses.
What is so special about teachers that they have an expectation of walking across the street to their place of work?
Nothing is special about teachers. Many things would be tons better if everyone could work where they live. I used to live in a community next to a university where lots of professors lived. My best friends lived upstairs from the shops we frequented. Some of them worked in those shops. It was a walkable community, the kind where your friend might call out to you on the sidewalk from their balcony to come up and have dinner. Such things weren't luxuries but were once the province of everyman and everywoman. There is something really gracious about that kind of living. Society is poorer for it going away. Granted, increasing density is likely to squash some of those things out. However, it might well create new opportunities for such communities to exist, especially if combined with better public transportation.
Instead of focusing on public transport to make commute painless
Public transport has a history of making cities more vibrant. No disagreement there.
This expectation of living next to where you work is exactly why we have a housing density problem.
You are misunderstanding my position. People don't absolutely need to live exactly where they work. They just need to be able to afford someplace to live with a modicum of dignity -- based on perceptions of relative status. A society that prices-out certain vital segments of itself entirely -- based on market distoring laws and regulations -- is doing something wrong. I mention the young teachers and young professors specifically, because it strikes me as a misguided way of ensuring one's youth are radicalized and ideologically disconnected from their own society.
we are stuffing people like sardines in a can
We in CA are deliberately a few steps removed from densities the market would naturally settle at.
crafted by housing activists who are mostly grant funded non profits and public agencies
Are there actually activists who want more housing density? Most of what I hear about are NIMBYs and people with misguided goals of "preserving the original character" of the neighborhood by just saying no. Perhaps you are aware of a different side of this than I am.
Of course there are activists who disrupt city council meetings to increase Bay Area density. Who do you think came up with the term NIMBY? It is meant to shame people. It took me about three months to start introducing myself as NIMBY. ‘Hi, my name is ___. I am a NIMBY. So now that it’s out of the way..next?’ Housing advocates come in from other cities and threaten to sue cities if they don’t build more housing.
If you are a developer and you are required by law to build 80 high end apartments only if you set aside 20 units as affordable units...what would anyone who has learnt to count with 10 fingers do?
They’d either pass on the cost to the upper 60 or build 120 units and make a profit.
As far as Sacramento is concerned, this is fine because they get more property taxes of highly inflated high end housing PLUS affordable housing taxes.
But the schools now have to absorb 120 households worth of children instead of 80 households worth. There are 240 cars on the road where normal density would have put 160.
Gas, power, utilities, trash, water...all public agencies make money. The state and county collect more taxes. Local governance suffers while state captures most of the tax monies that it redistributes to areas that are typically lower income, higher welfare, lower tax producing and lower housing density.
Meanwhile urban high density towns where productivity and income is high are vilified as NIMBYs, pay high taxes, get less community benefits and tax disbursements, have high density and crumbling infrastructure..commute short distance for longer due to lack of public transport and traffic jams. All the while the rest of the state spits on your face because you are one of the worst .. ‘tech bros’ and Silicon Valley millionaire while all the time you have a mortgage and kids and higher cost of living like anyone else in California. It’s a tier difference but it’s not a real difference. Only in California will one be disowned and shamed for desiring a higher quality of life and for upward mobility.
It is filled with people hungry for upward mobility coming from countries where the promise of a better life is in America. These are not folks who take a gap year to travel around Europe or grandma leaves a trust fund. To claim that we MUST be altruistic is itself a sign of privilege.
You can’t go to a hungry person who has been starving for days and has finally found a way to eat well...to share all he has worked hard to obtain. Maybe once he is satiated, he might share. But great things come out of raw passion and desire. It may not seem virtuous to some but who are they to judge?
Californians understand this. Immigrants understand this. Americans from other states who don’t understand the California state of mind don’t get it. From the gold rush days, ca has always been in a frenzied state of creation and creative destruction. That’s our default state of mind and that’s why California is different from the rest of America and that’s why everyone wants to come here and precisely why we are overcrowded.
But now if we make California unCalifornia, we will be taking away the very identity that makes California what it is..it’s not just creation. It’s also creative destruction.
I would rather live in France than in Soviet Russia. I would rather live in California than in France.
I find this utterly fascinating. This runs 180 degrees counter to the usual narrative, that the activists are out to block increased density. Is there documentation?
But the schools now have to absorb 120 households worth of children instead of 80 households worth. There are 240 cars on the road where normal density would have put 160.
These are problems cities have always dealt with.
Meanwhile urban high density towns where productivity and income is high are vilified as NIMBYs
Huh? This also runs 180 degrees counter to the usual narrative. NIMBYs are seen as against higher density.
Only in California will one be disowned and shamed for desiring a higher quality of life and for upward mobility.
The usual narrative is that NIMBYs are for "higher for me, but not for thee."
It is filled with people hungry for upward mobility coming from countries where the promise of a better life is in America. These are not folks who take a gap year to travel around Europe or grandma leaves a trust fund. To claim that we MUST be altruistic is itself a sign of privilege.
No one I know is for NIMBYs being altruistic. Everyone wants NIMBYs to stop distorting the natural housing market. To stop being the opposite of altruistic.
But now if we make California unCalifornia, we will be taking away the very identity that makes California what it is..it’s not just creation. It’s also creative destruction.
The usual narrative is that NIMBYs are against creative destruction. NIMBYs are the ones saying "no." You're saying you're a NIMBY for creative destruction -- which takes the form of saying "no?"
The STATE does nothing to deal with infrastructure and just keeps building in expensive and dense parts of the state.
I am living INSIDE the nightmare.
That may be true. In some ways, it is suggesting a return to the past. But that also means we could just as well have a web of smaller cities that are interconnected (for example by high speed rail) instead of packing everyone tightly into a concrete and steel jungle.
I don't fetishize mega cities but I accept the fact that some cities will become the center of certain industries and thus naturally evolve into megacities. This is especially true of places like San Francisco (the city itself) where geography simply gets in the way. If a city finds itself in this position, there is no option but to build up. It cannot pretend to be a suburb.
I don't even mean sky scrapers, but it would be nice to have like a four story building or two out of the main downtown areas, rather than the two story max that it seems to have now.
Also, more homes != more cars and more driving. Seattle and Minneapolis have both added more residents and decreased vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by allowing infill development and increasing transit coverage. (https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/02/08/minneapolis-and-seatt...)
Also, for what it's worth, > population density = < net pollution. mass transit etc. are great optimizations of resources. these humans already exist - it's just a matter of where they exist.
The problem isn't space. It's NIMBY. It's groupthink disconnected from reality.
When self interest cuts the next generation off at the knees, it's no longer so well connected to reality.
You are asking those who work hard to avail a certain standard of life to be altruistic? How is this logical?
Why do you think someone would work 10-12-14 hours a day? Spend 2 hours commuting..take no vacations..take enormous risks with low pay for a start up to maybe hit the big leagues? They are risk takers. Risk takers and A types are not altruistic.
And yet..these are the people who made Bay Area desirable.
And immigrants. These are people who were so unhappy with their native countries(not coincidentally, in the Bay Area..this is majority from high population countries) that they were willing to double down and work hard and deal with immigration and leave family, language and culture behind to start a new life in a strange country.
You are asking these immigrants to say YES IN MY BACKYARD? Do you see the irony and/or the humour in that expectation?
If one wants someone to unclench their fists and give up something, then there has to be an incentive for them to do it. You are looking for altruism amongst the crushed middle class. What do they get back in return?
Convert NIMBYs with community benefits or better roads or recreational spots in the city or better schools or just about anything that would make their quality of life better. What kind of negotiation is it to ask someone to sacrifice their deeply held beliefs and fond desires for the promise of WORSENING quality of life? How will this tactic even work?
Building new housing and modifying existing housing costs several orders of magnitude more than it did a half century ago.
Why do you think someone would work 10-12-14 hours a day?
My wife works like that. She's definitely a type A. She's also an immigrant.
They are risk takers. Risk takers and A types are not altruistic.
Calling leaving room for young people to make their way, "altruism?" Arranging society to allow for the next generation is "Altruism!?" Sorry, but that's just good governance. When a society transforms, such that about the only people who can gracefully afford being 20-something newlyweds are 40-something professionals, that society has become truly ossified. In most times and places throughout history, there are places where young lower and working class people can be thrifty and make their way. It's disappearing from a lot of California.
You are asking these immigrants to say YES IN MY BACKYARD? Do you see the irony and/or the humour in that expectation?
My parents are immigrants and my wife is an immigrant. If one cares about the next generation, if one cares about upward social mobility, then "yes in my backyard" is the answer.
We went to a real estate meetup of my wife's alma mater. There was a young man who was with a project building shipping container mother-in-law units, with the goal of increasing density and reducing the cost of housing. Literally, "yes in my backyard" manifested in actual hardware.
Altruism : altruism noun al· tru· ism | \ ˈal-trü-ˌi-zəm \ Definition of altruism 1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others charitable acts motivated purely by altruism 2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species[..]
governance noun gov· er· nance | \ ˈgə-vər-nən(t)s \ Definition of governance : GOVERNMENT the challenges of national governance [..]
I am not saying no one should care about the next generation. I am saying that even ‘caring for the next generation’ has to be sensible and rational. How is overcrowded schools ‘caring for the next generation?” Or being away from your child due to long commutes? How is worsening air quality and high cost of living and increasing pollution..all attributes of high density cities...’better for the next generation’?
You are saying a child raised in Visalia is worse off than a child raised in Palo Alto. It’s not because of housing density. It’s because of governance that doesn’t provide for good schools in Visalia and not enough support to alleviate school pressure in Palo Alto.
High density housing does NOTHING except generate taxes for the government that spends most of it for the care and feeding of employees and to cover unfunded pension liabilities.
For what it’s worth, CA will not allow container mother in law units in the backyards. It won’t bring in as much property tax as building a three story 2400 sq ft matchbox home on a 3000 sq ft lot for a million dollars price tag to get $12k property tax per annum.
This..THIS..is the reality of California.
Taking care of the next generation is an enlightened form of selfishness.
I am saying that even ‘caring for the next generation’ has to be sensible and rational.
I agree.
How is overcrowded schools ‘caring for the next generation?”
I'm for school choice.
High density housing does NOTHING except generate taxes for the government that spends most of it for the care and feeding of employees and to cover unfunded pension liabilities.
[citation needed]
In New York, it seems to have created a vibrant and diverse society. (While housing price pressure seems to be undoing that there as well.)
For what it’s worth, CA will not allow container mother in law units in the backyards.
Didn't Fresno pass favorable legislation?
This..THIS..is the reality of California.
Shortsighted self interest? No disagreement.
California is more enlightened and egalitarian than most other states in the country. If making rational choices is ‘shortsighted self interest’, I can see how I am comfortable live that.
That's the narrative California tells itself. The reality is a bit more nuanced than that. The visible income inequality in the Bay Area puts me in mind of France before the revolution. (Another wine growing world power with world renowned culture and upper classes concerned with fripperies in the midst of incredible squalor.)
Increasing demand while keeping supply constant will (continue to) be bad news for lower and middle income people.
The truth is that people have different wants/needs. Not everyone wants to live in a high-density megalopolis. Many want a smaller, slower-paced life, with more breathing room. And those who have that and prefer it, don't want to lose it in favor of accommodating others - which is a very rational viewpoint. As such I don't think it is fair to paint it as 'disconnected from reality'.
When one's "wanting things to be chill" is interfering with society's transferring the reins to the next generation, it is 'disconnected from reality'.
Moreover, I don't know that your perspective is uniform across any generation.
Hey that's just too bad you've been priced out of the place you grew up. That's just the market. That's the breaks. Hey, you have options in other places. Quit being entitled!
Instead they are coveting one of the most desirable places in the world, and want that location and its people to change in significant ways to accommodate them.
Instead techies moving there for the sweet, sweet high paying jobs are coveting the most desirable places in the world, and want that location and its people to change in significant ways to accommodate them. The big difference is that they have the money, so they're the ones that get their way. The golden rule: he who has the gold, writes the rules. Again, it's all well and good. It's all legal and within the letter of the law. In an overall view, is such an approach really that smart and benevolent? If you look at it a certain way, no, I don't think that's benevolent and wise.
I don't think that's the prior generation interfering as much as the next generation exhibiting entitlement - the entitlement of wanting scarce, highly-valued things, without creating the necessary value to earn it
Living where you grew up is now entitlement. If you want to live where you grew up, you're going to have to create the necessary value. What, are you entitled!? Again, that's the market reality. That's all technically legal, technically correct. It's still kinda crappy if you look at it from a different point of view.
If it weren't for a certain California law, nearly all of the easily accessible beaches would be owned or indirectly access-controlled by rich people. If it weren't for a certain California law, that condition would be simply market reality. It would be technically legal. It would be technically correct. It would definitely be kinda crappy, though.
It's in the long term interest of us techies to act in ways that are good and benevolent, and show some forbearance in certain matters, even though our market power and money allow us to do it anyways. Social unrest is caused by perceived relative inequality. Wouldn't being forced out of your childhood home by richer people feel quite "unequal?" That said, the answer isn't to try and legislate equality, as that is shown to have the opposite effect. The answer is a market which creates enough housing for all segments of society to live in the "desirable places in the world." That's how they become and stay the "desirable places in the world."
Moreover, I don't know that your perspective is uniform across any generation.
Fair enough.
There is plenty of space in California, but people just cluster in the Bay Area and LA area.
Japan on the other hand is smaller and has lesser immigrants, most ageing population.
Also..New Zealand has 5 million people and it’s a country. Canada is 22 million people and it’s bigger than Japan. India is 1.3 billion people. What’s the point of comparisons? It’s not a race to be the most dense state. There is no prize at the end of the race.