I know how we can fight against housing prices (San Francisco: how much, buying a house)

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by TheGreatCurve

I already said earlier that I liked it.

Thought that was in response to another post. I bet you could build 100,000 SFHs on that unused land or more all with gorgeous views.

[TheGreatCurve]

Originally Posted by SFBayBoomer

No way. Greenery and open spaces are important.

Also, a big no to your suggestion that someone could not have owned another home. If they sell the other home, why shouldn't they be FIRST in line to move to these homes, rather than ineligible?

Really, your suggestion is so weird. I gather you have moved here in the past 16 years, eh?

If anything, we need to stabilize the market here so that non-citizens can't buy here, period.

Because it's another first-time homebuyer program. If you already own a home, you've already got yours so don't need another one to live in.

[kgbnsf]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

The government should sell the land on the Santa Cruz mountains, San Bruno mountain, and east bay hills for pennies on the dollar and remove zoning restrictions on condition they build SIngle family tract homes (1000-1500 square feet, 5000 square foot lot) for 300,000 and sell to people who make under 100,000 only. To be eligible you must not own another Bay Area home in person or by trust and you must have lived in the area for 10-15 years.

Much of the hills would be un-developable and very expensive to build on for people that only make 100k. And, you would really impact the desirability of the area by repurposing the parks and open areas that most of us hold dear.

But, why stop there- why not simply fill in major portions of the bay? It would be more cost effective than building on steep mountains. Golden Gate Park can accommodate a huge portion of new homes. And, why not move the airports out of the region, too. Think of all the neighborhoods you could get into the land occupied by SFO and OAK! Develop public transportation more and we could repurpose freeways too. Lots of ideas on how we can build more housing! And, all of them are as absurd as yours.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by kgbnsf

Much of the hills would be un-developable and very expensive to build on for people that only make 100k. And, you would really impact the desirability of the area by repurposing the parks and open areas that most of us hold dear.

But, why stop there- why not simply fill in major portions of the bay? It would be more cost effective than building on steep mountains. Golden Gate Park can accommodate a huge portion of new homes. And, why not move the airports out of the region, too. Think of all the neighborhoods you could get into the land occupied by SFO and OAK! Develop public transportation more and we could repurpose freeways too. Lots of ideas on how we can build more housing! And, all of them are as absurd as yours.

Developers would find a way to make a profit. Remember a lot of land around foster city was wetland.

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

Developers would find a way to make a profit. Remember a lot of land around foster city was wetland.

Why only single family homes? Talk about the most inefficient use of precious real estate in the entire region. And do you think anyone would willingly vote to allow this land to be built on?

[TheGreatCurve]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

Why only single family homes? Talk about the most inefficient use of precious real estate in the entire region. And do you think anyone would willingly vote to allow this land to be built on?

That's why when it comes to developing new housing, it should never be put up to a vote by the people. Existing homeowners will almost always vote no. That]s why new housing never gets built.

They don't care that the population in the area has tripled since they moved here 40 years ago. They think their town can stay a "small, quaint town" forever. It's unrealistic and delusional.

If their predecessors were like them, all of Silicon Valley would still be farms and orchards.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

Why only single family homes? Talk about the most inefficient use of precious real estate in the entire region. And do you think anyone would willingly vote to allow this land to be built on?

Not that precious. 75% of the Bay Area is undeveloped

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by TheGreatCurve

That's why when it comes to developing new housing, it should never be put up to a vote by the people. Existing homeowners will almost always vote no. That]s why new housing never gets built.

They don't care that the population in the area has tripled since they moved here 40 years ago. They think their town can stay a "small, quaint town" forever. It's unrealistic and delusional.

If their predecessors were like them, all of Silicon Valley would still be farms and orchards.

Turning public parkland into development would definitely come to a vote. Building over some dilapidated building, empty brown field (e.g. former military base), or parking lot is one thing (which I'm 1000% behind, especially if it's near transit infrastructure) - taking away one of the biggest public resources in the region is quite another.

I personally have no desire to see the Bay Area stay as a small town forever. It needs to build A LOT more. But I see no reason why we have to even consider paving over our VERY precious open space/preserved land (especially with something as ridiculously inefficient as thousands of SFHs...). By building densely in the center we can lower real estate values for those that want to buy, move people more efficiently/cleanly vs. inefficient sprawl, and STILL preserve the open space that we have around us.

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

Not that precious. 75% of the Bay Area is undeveloped

If you don't think that open space/preserved land isn't precious, you have no idea how good you have it in the Bay Area. Most regions would kill for the open space access that this region has. It's one of the finest qualities of the metro. And people will (rightly) fight VERY hard to protect it.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

Turning public parkland into development would definitely come to a vote. Building over some dilapidated building, empty brown field (e.g. former military base), or parking lot is one thing (which I'm 1000% behind, especially if it's near transit infrastructure) - taking away one of the biggest public resources in the region is quite another.

I personally have no desire to see the Bay Area stay as a small town forever. It needs to build A LOT more. But I see no reason why we have to even consider paving over our VERY precious open space/preserved land (especially with something as ridiculously inefficient as thousands of SFHs...). By building densely in the center we can lower real estate values for those that want to buy, move people more efficiently/cleanly vs. inefficient sprawl, and STILL preserve the open space that we have around us.



If you don't think that open space/preserved land isn't precious, you have no idea how good you have it in the Bay Area. Most regions would kill for the open space access that this region has. It's one of the finest qualities of the metro. And people will (rightly) fight VERY hard to protect it.

I'd give it up in order to have the same quality of life as last generations.

[3rdGen SFan]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

I'd give it up in order to have the same quality of life as last generations.

Yeah, but a lot of us wouldn't give up the park land, and past generations had these parks included in the quality of life here. Using public park land for housing developments would be decreasing the quality of life for residents who use the parks.