I'm loving the tech shuttle bus protestors! (San Francisco: neighborhood, live)

[Tulemutt]

How "dense" do think coastal California should become?

[jade408]

There needs to be targeted density. We decided we do not want housing in sf the peninsula etc. As a result we built housing in former farm land in Antioch, Modesto, Brentwood, Gilroy etc and we got extra traffic congestion and prices that were even more unaffordable.

[Obamadon1]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

How "dense" do think coastal California should become?

A lot denser than it is

[dmode]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

Source? Where's your data

lol, you need data for this. Just do a google search. Facebook alone created a 1000 millionaires in the Bay Area

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Obamadon1

A lot denser than it is

sure. Because driving is a snap and resources are unlimited as it is now.

As a friend of mine used to always quote: "growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell." Writer named ed abbey I believe first said it.

[Texamichiforniasota]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

sure. Because driving is a snap and resources are unlimited as it is now.

As a friend of mine used to always quote: "growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell." Writer named ed abbey I believe first said it.

Growth in population is already occurring, whether you want it or not. The question is, should growth in housing units equal the growth in population, or should the number of housing units remain relatively static and the only thing that should grow is the cost of rent and mortgages?

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

sure. Because driving is a snap and resources are unlimited as it is now.

As a friend of mine used to always quote: "growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell." Writer named ed abbey I believe first said it.

By not growing housing in desirable areas near job centers is causing the long commute.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Texamichiforniasota

Growth in population is already occurring, whether you want it or not. The question is, should growth in housing units equal the growth in population, or should the number of housing units remain relatively static and the only thing that should grow is the cost of rent and mortgages?

thanks professor. I'd have never figured that out. But the answer is units should remain static. Then all that nasty population growth I don't like will just have to locate some where's else.

When I was first sent out to California the state population was about 18 million as I recall. How many of you reading this thread think another 20 or 30 million will just make things more fun? Especially techies.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

By not growing housing in desirable areas near job centers is causing the long commute.

you want to try that again Shooter? So it makes sense to read I mean.

[legal_eagle]

Originally Posted by Texamichiforniasota

The only person that sounds entitled is you. You seem to think you you have the right to live in a beautiful, lively city without having to pay market rate for rent, and that you should somehow have the right to decide which other groups can live there. If you like San Francisco and want to stay, you either need to buy property so you can lock in the right to stay, or you have to compete with other people that want to live there. If you can't hack it in SF, there is always cheap housing in Stockton.

As several other people have pointed out, the underlying problem isn't the techies driving up rents. That is just the symptom. The underlying problem is a housing shortage, in both San Francisco and in the Silicon Valley. This is a result of people in both the Silicon Valley and San Francisco resisting denser development. The concerns are usually about traffic, changing the 'character' of the neighborhood, and displacing the people in the buildings that are already there. However, each time a development gets blocked or a building is downsized to get permits with neighbor approval, the housing shortage gets more acute and rents continue to go up. That being said, I wouldn't want a giant apartment building to be built down the street from my house either. So, if you want to protest something, protest the difficulty getting permits for denser development, not the people who's high rents pay property taxes to support police, fire, and public transportation in SF.

I've lived in SF since 1985 and I'm quite comfortably ensconced at the moment, so I think I'm well past the point of "hacking it." SF has always been expensive, and no one expects otherwise.

What I object to is the tech behemoths using their financial clout to push out longtime San Francisco residents and otherwise imperil San Francisco's unique culture all in the name of profit.