Another recourse would be not to build stuff in other people's backyards.
There's plenty of space in the US.
There's plenty of space in the US.
Anywhere that truly, desperately requires more low-income housing isn't a place where it's not in someone's back yard. And if you move low-income housing projects so far away from the population center that no one will have their backyard disturbed you're making the housing non-viable before the first mound of dirt has been moved.
But yes. I believe the plan should be not to squeeze more people into already overpopulated areas, but how to attract people to other places.
> you're making the housing non-viable before the first mound of dirt has been moved.
Why's that?
It's far cheaper to live in places with low demand, so why do low income people not live there?
Conversely if it's so much more expensive for a low income person to live and work in SF, why is there so much supply that wages can be low?
Not if you live in heavily subsidized housing.
As a result, jobs and money also tend to move out. Somehow the low-income people, who now have all the space and jobs to themselves happen to be uncapable of running the place.
There were - the Volkswagen Beetle. You could even bolt a Porsche engine directly onto the bug's transaxle. The same fellow (Ferdinand Porsche) designed both cars.
Many car lines have high and low ends, where the manufacturer tries to appeal to high and low spenders.
I do find it hilarious that the Porsche cayanne is the same as the Volkswagen version but worst interior.
Correct.
I want a supermarket to pay cashier a decent salary, so that he could afford a shelter at market price. Otherwise it looks like I'm subsidizing the aforementioned business from my taxes.
Yes, because we love democracy, don't we folks.
> when the housing crisis becomes so acute
And why is there a housing crisis, exactly? You're presumably a technical person — apply some systems thinking.
> Yes, because we love democracy, don't we folks.
Home ownership is about 50/50 in the Bay. If CA acts against NIMBY short-term interests that isn't in and of itself anti-democratic.
It could make sense to question whether that's a power that should reside with the state, one might attack some of the common anti-NIMBY arguments (e.g., that people without homes are disproportionately unable to participate in local politics), and any individual state-level solution could be undesirable on its own merits, but going straight for the jugular and asserting the state is being undemocratic by not protecting NIMBYs seems overly inflammatory.