Lucas and Rich Neighbors Agree to Disagree: Part II (2012) | Hacker News Reader

Lucas and Rich Neighbors Agree to Disagree: Part II (2012)

nytimes.com

16 pointsjaytaylor19 comments

Marin is full of the worst kind of NIMBYs (even by Bay Area standards). That said I support the idea of building more low-income housing in San Rafael (even in Lucas Valley) but I doubt Lucas' intentions were an earnest attempt at providing meaningful low income housing to Marin County.

One of the biggest problems, IMO, with densifying that area is that there's essentially zero public transit beyond the bus pads (one in each direction) on CA-101. The "SMART" train runs about a mile east of 101, but there's no Lucas Valley / Smith Ranch Rd stop. If there's anything that Marin is worse about than housing it's transit. And if there's anything worse than suburban sprawl it's suburban sprawl without any infrastructure to support it. Marin ought to charge for access to the park and ride lot and use the money to fund both a SMART "station" and a shuttle bus to run down Lucas Valley Road to the station. And then build the spite housing.

Oh well, at least he's not freaking James Hetfield.

Although it makes me feel a bit petty to say this, I have to admit that I am feeling a lot of schadenfreude. The terror of extremely privileged people on being "assailed" by "low lifes" has a touch of dark humour to it I think.

“Carl Fricke, a board member of the Lucas Valley Estates Homeowners Association, which represents houses nearest to the Lucas property, said: ‘We got letters saying, “You guys are going to get what you deserve. You’re going to bring drug dealers, all this crime and lowlife in here.”’”

It’s amazing how grotesquely uninformed their ideas are about low income people. Oh, you live in Marin and you think people who live in low income housing are “drug dealers” and “low lifes”? We have to take Carl Fricke at his word about these letters, but if true shows just how ignorant and even racist people can be even in so-called “progressive” areas.

Obviously, not all low income people are alike. But in nearby San Francisco, they built a low income housing complex near my house, and now there are people outside the entryway smoking marijuana in public at least 1 in 10 times I pass it. I push my kid’s stroller through the smoke.

Call me ignorant, call me racist, call me heartless, call me whatever you want. If another one of these housing complexes is proposed here, I will do my part to stop it. These individuals are currently smoking marijuana on the street somewhere, and that’s where they can continue to do it.

Isn’t cannabis legal?

Well for starters, it's still federally illegal even if it's legal in the State of California.

Secondly, even in California, "Recreational use of cannabis in public is still illegal."

Smoking it has been de facto legalized in San Francisco for a while now (presumably only in areas where smoking/vaping are allowed). I'd have to go look to be certain, but I believe that marijuana citations were formally classed as the lowest priority for SFPD a few years back.

I’m not asking SFPD to ticket these guys, I’m just asking policymakers to not import them into my neighborhood of luxury condos and families with small children.

And my point went right over your head. Especially in San Francisco smoking pot in public transcends class and wealth.

Maybe mine did as well. Yes, there are plenty of places where smoking pot transcends class. 6th and Market, Geary and Leavenworth, 3rd and Brannan even. Keep the low income housing and homeless shelters there. Don’t fuck up new neighborhoods.

Despite your clutching your pearls, smoking pot in your neighborhood isn't new. Poor people don't fuck up "new neighborhoods". If you don't want to see poverty, San Francisco is definitely the wrong choice for you.

Call me ignorant, call me racist, call me heartless, call me whatever you want.

That you brought race into the discussion is pretty clear evidence that your concerns are not pot smoke.

I like how you are the expert on when pot smoking on the street in my neighborhood became a thing, despite not knowing what neighborhood I’m even talking about.

Given that I was born in San Francisco and have lived in the Bay Area my whole life I feel pretty qualified to comment. But your whole "call me a racist if you must" thing is very telling. There's also simply not that much low income housing in SF proper.

I call bullshit. People smoke pot out in the open in San Francisco all the fucking time, in nearly every neighborhood, and have done so for many, many years regardless of their income level. For example: the Financial District at lunch. OTOH if "low income housing complex" is a euphemism for Eatsa then I'm with you.

They didn’t in my neighborhood before the introduction of this complex. I assume that the neighborhoods you’re referencing may be where they moved in from, and it’s there that I prefer they stay.

This article is from 2012. Title should be marked accordingly.

Good catch! Added.

Charitable or spiteful? Why not both? This seems like a great outcome considering how sorely affordable housing is needed in the Bay Area.

¿Porque no los dos? Because it's a terrible area to plop down dense housing in that location and leave it at that. Lucas Valley is just that disconnected. The challenges aren't insurmountable but there are much better places (such as near the Civic Center SMART 'station'), but even those places run into the legendary Marin NIMBYs.

Were Lucas to also propose requisite biking and transit improvements it would be another story (and increase the scope of the fight by a hilarious magnitude).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com