...and ironically creating some of America's highest market rents in the process.
But I think the sentiment is broadly popular because it gets the heart of why people fall in love with San Francisco. It's not just the community (whatever community), it's the housing stock, the 'perfect' density, the hills, the views, the shops and restaurants, the smell of the air. That's what makes San Francisco San Francisco. One hundred years ago, Los Angeles looked a lot like SF. But they replaced 90% of the victorians, they flattened the hills, they built freeways everywhere. San Francisco was spared that, largely because the people fought back, and now the people want to fight to preserve what was saved.
I'm of mixed-feelings about it. The Bay Guardian always warns of "Manhattanization", but the alternative endpoint is turning into a huge version of Carmel By The Sea.
I understand that other people don't feel that way, but at the same time I think if people were told the choices, which is basically Manhattanization and $1500/mo rent or stay the course and pay $3k/mo, people on the whole would pick the former.
But because it's framed in terms of 'preserving our heritage', it's easy for people to wishfully think that they can keep things the same for free.
I upvoted kijin's comment. If you want to build another Manhattan full of gigantic buildings with computer cubicles and tiny apartments, do it in LA or somewhere, because it's probably never going to happen in SF.
And new construction becomes old within a few years. There are plenty of perfectly serviceable condo towers of unfashionable age in downtown Chicago with very reasonably priced apartments.
Just look at BART. Very popular in the polls, approved in a landslide, dismal ridership. Why? Because everybody thought that other people riding BART was a great idea- they had no intention of riding themselves.
NIMBY-ism about BART was manifested by the peninsula towns, which refused to allow BART in the first place (due to misguided fears of easy access to their towns by transients, potential criminals, etc.)
As opposed to those whose homes and businesses were Eminent Domain'd to make way for the construction, their nearby neighbors who now have loud above-ground train noise beginning at 5am, etc.
Also, I doubt much eminent domain was exercised/abused during the construction. Have you noticed the way the tracks weave, go underground here, run in the middle of a freeway there? Terminals in the outskirts of town? They certainly exercised that power, but it's not like BART runs right through the middle of town.
(Left the Bay ten years ago)
Ok, I live in Europe, but I was under the impression that SF had a bit of a smog problem.
Of course, they have a fog problem, but that's a different matter!
Perhaps you are thinking of Los Angeles?
It does however have a fog problem, because those nice clean prevailing winds are quite cold and moisture condenses rise when encountering the hills along the coast. This is in fact the major source of water for the coastal giant sequoias.
"Coast redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens) are distributed along a narrow band of California's northern coast. During the summer these red giants take advantage of the fog to capture water out of the air—and summer is the critical growing season for the trees, despite being California's dry season."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fog-that-nourishes...
Giant Redwoods = Giant Sequioa = sequoiadendron gigantium
Seems like there is some imprecise naming going on which is why I wasn't sure.
Los Angeles is the California city that is known for its smog problem. The US is big, so its easy to get the various cities confused.
It doesn't help that California is huge. San Francisco to Los Angeles is a 381 Mile (613.16 km) journey... which is 20% longer than the distance between Paris, France and Amsterdam, Netherlands.
best described as "an open sewer"
Its merely a means for the very rich to protect themselves. They simply limit who can live near them by dressing it up in fancy sound good, do good, terms. Protecting the environment, protecting history, and all, is just nice speak for keeping people we don't want away.
As to one highly rated post about the benefits of socialism, it never has or will work. Socialism and capitalism are little different in the end, the first merely concentrates wealth and power in the hands of politicians directly, the later just adds another class that benefits.
I think this is a pretty groundless claim. San Francisco has been one of the most tolerant cities of alternative lifestyles and even homeless people compared to any other American city.
It's easy to claim that the rich just want their gated communities, but if you can't even address the claim that they want to preserve the existing quality of the city without claiming a hidden ulterior class motive then how are we supposed to have an honest dialogue? You can't just unilaterally declare a whole group of people to be lying about their motivations and expect anything productive come out of it.
Someone thought that all that protection was free?