Hacker News Reader

Comment by jandrese | Hacker News Reader

Without "regulation" downtown San Fransisco would be a towering mass of high rise apartment complexes. Traffic would be impossible so people would be forced to find alternatives. There would be endless bitching about the eyesores on the horizon and the perpetually congested streets and the ruination of property values for the heavily gentrified neighborhoods.

View on HN

It's hard to tell whether you're presenting this as worse or better than the current situation.

It would be better for some (more reasonable rents, no need to own a car) but worse for others (retirees who intended to sell their house for millions and move out to the country). It would also force the city to invest in more mass transit, which will inconvenience a lot of car owners.

The regulations have the effect of picking winners and losers, and since the regulations were written by the old established homeowners they were the ultimate winners. If young people and renters want to see change in their lifetime they need to start getting themselves elected to local boards and councils. Local politics matter.

No offense, but I could care less about some boomer who will only make 500% profit off of his house rather than 1000%, vs letting people who aren't developers live in the city they work in. Car users benefit from better transportation because their repair bills go down, and there are less cars on the road.

Also, its hard to get elected to local government in places you don't live in.

No offense, but it is hard to care about the problems a bunch of 20-somethings making multiples of the median household income have finding apartments for prices they want to pay. Particularly if they don't live in the area they want to diddle around with.

First of all, they probably wouldn't make as much, at least at entry level, if cost of living wasn't so high. Second, the silicon valley ecosystem isn't even mostly populated by developers, the rest of the people making below median household income need places to live too. The housing problem isn't a "rich millennial vs rich boomer" scenario, it's "rich boomer vs literally everyone else". Maybe if they had to pay property taxes on the current value of their property they'd move somewhere else, and we wouldn't have this issue.

Would the rents actually be better, or would people now in Oakland move into SF?

The retirees could sell their property to developers for millions. The losers would be those who want to continue living there, but are taxed or zoned out of their homes. See "gentrification" and "regulatory taking".

Increase the supply and the price eventually has to drop. Basic supply and demand. That said, this problem has been allowed to grow exceptionally big and there is an fantastic amount of pent-up demand that would have to be satisfied before prices really started to normalize.

Add anti-lock braking systems and automobiles have to be safer. Basic physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Say%27s_law

If people in Oakland want to move into SF and can afford it at current rents, they're doing it now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com