Hacker News Reader

Comment by shalmanese | Hacker News Reader

Here's an argument for rent control: Mixed income neighborhoods are more vibrant and thriving compared to more homogenous neighborhoods. Living in the Mission, I definitely feel like the comfortable mixing of multiple cultures and socio-economic classes is what makes it such an exciting neighborhood compared with SOMA where it's either all yuppie apartments or run down slums with nothing in between.

View on HN

The Mission is a shithole. I don't think it serves your point.

As someone who knows neither SoMa nor Mission, could you elaborate please?

San Francisco hoods. SOMA is "South of Market" and is kind of industrial; It's being revamped with live/work lofts and lots of SMB / Shared office spaces.

Mission is another neighborhood which is pretty much a shit-hole, but IS a cool place. There are lots of great places to eat and drink and there are festivals, parties and parades most every night.

Usually when you hear about someone being shot, it's either in Oakland or the Mission.

"shit hole" is extraordinarily relative, apparently, and reflects more on the person using the term than the place being described.

Unfortunately, "exciting", "yuppie", and "vibrant" aren't economic terms.

It sounds like you're justifying rent control on the basis of aesthetics.

Aesthetics are what drives immigration to a degree. Would you rather move to Cleveland or San Francisco if everything else was equal? I thought so.

So, SF should cost more, since it's more desirable, and push people to poor ignored Cleveland to balance out the pressure.

The place with all the beautiful trees costs more, so lets build more housing there, cutting down the trees while doing so.

Same idea: You will lose the character without some sort of effort to not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com