Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In my opinion, the only views in San Francisco worth protecting (or anywhere really) are those of public spaces like parks.
The idea that some wealthy citizen's private views being ruined is considered a "serious problem" or even a problem at all is ridiculous. Especially in a city like San Francisco with its massive housing inequality.
Yeah.. so this is that redundant PNW extreme liberal way of thinking..
The fact is that in this world nothing is really fair. The wealthy does not need to be forced to deal with those that can't keep up (homeless).
In terms of real estate, if you can't afford it you go somewhere else.
I think it'll be better if we California ship all our homeless to your city Seattle. I can only hope that would be the way of the future. Stuff em in the corner up there.
Most people live in SF because of those views. Hell if you ruin it, you can just make it any other anywhereville city that we are building. It's nice walking down the street and seeing the Bay. People in other places don't have that so it's fine if they want to build taller.
SF should just pay extra taxes so that we can build a new metro area somewhere else. I think cities are like art, like stories. Sometimes you tell a good one and we don't need a sequel. SF has a great fabric, we can build another city in the 21st century. I think cities that want to keep their character and have good reason to do so (SF, NOLA, Charleston, Santa Fe etc.) should keep their form. We don't need more bland cities with new bland architecture. Let SF be SF and let's build up Boise or some other place now.
This would work only if San Francisco could also offload all its economic growth to other metros. However, if it’s going to be a tech hub, it needs the housing to accommodate that. Keep in mind in about 72% of SF, it’s illegal to build apartments. The city could do a lot to upzone while still preserving most of the views.
This would work only if San Francisco could also offload all its economic growth to other metros. However, if it’s going to be a tech hub, it needs the housing to accommodate that. Keep in mind in about 72% of SF, it’s illegal to build apartments. The city could do a lot to upzone while still preserving most of the views.
We need a bargain where we tax people who get to live in paradise (The California coast) so that there is much more incentive for companies to move elsewhere. So I am all in favor of offloading economic growth to other places. You can't threaten me with a good time.
The current system we have is the worst of both worlds. We don't build anything in SF and companies want to congregate in SF. I simply think if the choice has to be made that it is much better to build another city and sacrifice economic growth in the Bay Area. We can do that so that more people living someplace else can have a good shot at life in other locations. The Bay Area will be just fine. We have already tried the method where we try to beg people living in California to build more housing. We have been complaining about this for 50 years. There is no serious person that thinks that California is going back to the 20th century when we were the magnet of growth. How much more housing do you think even in a good scenario that the Bay Area will build? They aren't Texas, it's not going to be much. We are the old guy in the club now. I think it's fine if the Bay Area wants to behave like some old European city that doesn't want to change, they just can't take all of the money with them.
I'm not a fan of European style systems where one city gets all of the growth (like London) and the rest of the country gets nothing. I would rather have more economically vibrant areas in say Boise Idaho, Denver, and other places rather than some small number of metros having some ridiculous outsized power. At least they build housing in Boise and we don't have to beg. I think we will be better off if we choose some other metro areas that are looking forward to the future rather than back to the past because they like things the way that they are now.
Not to mention we can't make a bargain on homelessness. I think it would be fine if people living in LA & SF paid higher taxes to spread out growth, but then we said that all of those homeless people can't just sit around here and mess up our downtowns. The left-right dichotomy on this has always been that the right would say that they need to get out and send them into the oblivion desert somewhere. The left says that they should just be able to stay around and screw up Venice Beach, public transit and any parks and public spaces. I'm not with either solution. I say that we pay to make other places nice, then we put our foot down and say that you can't just trash our neighborhoods anymore and expect us to just take it.
Surplus population, is basically the number en excess of those workers employed in producing something of marketable value. Everybody else is just "hangers-on", or at best, take in each other's wash. A woman has a "job" filling cabined drawers with photocopies of documents nobody will ever look at. She has to hire child care, who orders delivered pizza. . The dominoes keep falling, and the surplus keeps growing. (Another story is that the surplus is supported with borrowed money, now at $68 trillion)
Since productivity no longer depends on geographical features like navigable rivers , arable land and mineral deposits, efficiency is more dependent on cost of infrastructure, like water, energy, food and transport.
Yeah.. so this is that redundant PNW extreme liberal way of thinking..
The fact is that in this world nothing is really fair. The wealthy does not need to be forced to deal with those that can't keep up (homeless).
In terms of real estate, if you can't afford it you go somewhere else.
I think it'll be better if we California ship all our homeless to your city Seattle. I can only hope that would be the way of the future. Stuff em in the corner up there.
You do realise that a city can’t just be inhabited by the wealthy people/white collar that can “keep up”. Cities need to provide housing to lower wage workers too, like teachers, janitors, cashiers, hairdressers, waitresses, bar tenders, caregivers, Uber drivers, other service and blue collar jobs. Where are they supposed to live? Are you just going to offload them to the outskirts to Antioch, Livermore or even Stockton and have them commute multiple hours? You can’t have a functioning city without lower wage workers.
Btw I thought it was SF that was the epitome of liberalism but if they are stuffed with nimbys like yourself then I suppose SF is not as progressive as they espouse to be
Also I’m not saying that SF needs to turn into Manhattan with concrete canyons, but up zoning certain neighbourhoods with mid rise density would be sufficient. Also other cities in the Bay Area need to up zone like San Jose.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
