Sheer Madness: (San Francisco, Oakland, Pleasant Hill: condo, neighborhoods, to buy)

[Pietro25]

There ought to be a moratorium on azzholes from New York giving their opinion on what should be done in San Francisco (or California).

Usually when you give your opinion on any topic, you do so because you know something about it. People who live in New York do not have this basic criterion. They think because they live in New York their opinions are a priori valid and meaningful.

I'm kind of amazed people pass along these dumb NYC opinion pieces ("Is Oakland the New Brooklyn?" "Is the Mission the New Park Slope?"). Do New York magazines and forums print essays about what New York should do by benefit of the San Francisco experience? They don't.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Of course that is the biggest single influence. Now, why do tech companies want to be here so much? Pretty obvious, no?

An educated workforce. Did you think it was because of the GG Bridge and weather?

Sure. Wanting to keep your home and neighborhood intact is selfish. Lots of people would love to live on the French Riviera but can't find the opportunity or money that would allow. Perhaps the Riviera should restructure itself to accommodate. Stamford Connecticut is another place where high rises could be built. Commuting distance to NYC too.

It's more the "shut the door behind you mentality" you and others demonstrate.

What you and many others advocate is a redistribution of wealth and assets. If you want to label opposition selfish, be my guest. By the way, I'll look for a set of keys to your car in the mail. No point in you parking it so much of the day when I need to run errands.

Really don't see how that's what I'm advocating since I prefer more market based solutions to the housing affordability issue rather than the subsidized band-aid approach most places around here take. You want to use the govt to over-regulate and restrict development to where it benefits your position.

Oh, I feel pretty good about placing the topic right here talking about how the Bay Area is a perfect manifestation of the dilemma. If it somehow interferes with your day, you could always skip over it?

Clearly, still doesn't mean it's a relevant topic in this local forum. As someone just suggested, maybe try the "Philosophy" forum.

[andyadhi01]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Now, I am rather enjoying your comments here

Aside from the reality that more and more young people are living off their older parents longer and longer these days - yeah, ultimately younger help older. But do you not recognize what I just wrote a couple posts back about technology's gift? More and more is produced and managed and accomplished more easily with fewer and fewer people all the time. And that reality is accelerating.

There are over seven billion people in the world. I do not think for a nanosecond that we are anywhere close to seeing society disappear - except by overpopulation stresses. There is not enough work for all these people as it is. I suspect some of them can be engaged caring for the aging population as the shift occurs back to sane levels.

Wisdom would have it that it is not a good idea to invite 30 more people to occupy a 10 man life raft that needs bailing because it is sinking due to already having twenty people in it.

Are you some kind of Malthusian nutcase too impressed with your own hypothesis about how many people the earth should have?

[andyadhi01]

Originally Posted by 3rdGen SFan

What you said could similarly be applied to people who want to fill up the SF Bay Area with high-rise buildings--people who crave for high-rise housing and densely populated cities should go live in New York.

Eventually you gluttons for more housing are going to even want to build on land where parks currently are. The demand for more housing will never end no matter how densely we populate this small city.

It's ridiculous to keep building more housing when the traffic & parking issues haven't been solved yet.

If more housing is built, where are the equal quantities of local jobs going to come from to prevent those new locals from commuting daily by private vehicles to jobs elsewhere? Building more local businesses to create more local jobs should be considered first to attempt to solve the parking & traffic solutions, although even more new local jobs won't guarantee locals would be the ones hired, and it could instead just create worse traffic & parking issues.

This is the typical defeatist CA 'can't do' attitude that creates permanent policy paralysis in this state. I am talking about specific parts of San Mateo county that is way underbuilt and nothing will happen if it's done. Why can't they build along 280 and put a BART track in the middle of 280 just like they have in east bay. There is enormous amount of useless land there that is underutilized.

A state like TX has cities growing way faster than cities in CA and they seem to accommodate the influx without much quality of life issues. Why can't bay area do the same instead of protecting too much land as parks which are barely used. No one is suggesting that we build housing in Yosemite but nothing wrong with building on miles and miles of unused land in the bay area.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

The lower class would have to leave also. Basically SF would become a city of the extremely wealthy, since no one else could afford to live there. I guess some people might want that, but I think the majority want SF itself and the region in general to be compatible with people of different levels of economic success to be able to live here. It is better for the economy, and better for the environment.

I completely disagree with you, and I am not Catholic. I am a Deist. My father is Catholic but I was not baptized or raised in the Church because my mom was a Baptist, and therefore my parents wanted me to be able to choose my own religious/philosophical views. So, although I do agree with the Catholics that there is a God out there, my support for growth comes from a secular place, not religious doctrine.

But this kind of discussion has its own forum, dude. Right on this very web site we have a "Philosophy" forum where this subject comes up.

In fact, I would suggest that the moderators move this thread to that forum, and I will discuss it with you there. To me the philosophical position that the human race should purposefully cause its own extinction is an evil one, devoid of morality, (edit: it is known as "childfree philosophy")but it is not for the local city forums, it is for the Philosophy forum.

Cheeze-whiz neutrino, "dude", I used the term "catholic" with generic disdain. I don't care about your religious background, or beliefs. If you want to bring religion into this discussion there is no point in continuing. No one, including me, has suggested anything to support extinguishing the human race. A human population of over seven billion reducing itself by, say half, doesn't begin to challenge extinction.

But most importantly I would also point out that you are the one raising the issues as if purely philosophical. I am raising them in the context of over development of the Bay Area. I am still waiting for anyone to explain how increasing population in general - or specifically in the Bay Area - enhances the quality of human existence. Or even the quality of life in the Bay Area. Just what are we lacking locally that greater density will provide as an improvement?

[garyjohnyang]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

No one, including me, has suggested anything to support extinguishing the human race. A human population of over seven billion reducing itself by, say half, doesn't begin to challenge extinction.

So, you want to eliminate half of the human race? That in itself is disdainfully callous. I don't see how killing 3.6 billion people could possibly be any better. And do you really think our planet as it is is "challenging extinction"? How can that be true when our population begs otherwise?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by garyjohnyang

So, you want to eliminate half of the human race? That in itself is disdainfully callous. I don't see how killing 3.6 billion people could possibly be any better. And do you really think our planet as it is is "challenging extinction"? How can that be true when our population begs otherwise?

Unbelievable. I haven't suggested killing off a single soul. I used an example out of thin air. Truth is, through simple reduction of reproduction over a short series of generations, humanity could be reduced by 99% and still not be threatened with extinction. Bonus: if we reduced by 99%, the whole world could finally! comfortably! ALL live in the Bay Area! Affordably!

I propose we start a movement for just this purpose. We can call it the ELIB-eration Movement: for Everyone Live In the Bay.

Happily every after.

[andyadhi01]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Unbelievable. I haven't suggested killing off a single soul. I used an example out of thin air. Truth is, through simple reduction of reproduction over a short series of generations, humanity could be reduced by 99% and still not be threatened with extinction. Bonus: if we reduced by 99%, the whole world could finally! comfortably! ALL live in the Bay Area! Affordably!

I propose we start a movement for just this purpose. We can call it the ELIB-eration Movement: for Everyone Live In the Bay.

Happily every after.

If you dislike humans so much then the problem is you. Unless you are a psycho bent on exterminating human race, you should know that it's people that make the world interesting.... Otherwise earth is just another characterless dot in the universe! Also selfish narcissists like you definitely feel that your own existence is good because somehow you are special compared to rest of the humanity.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by andyadhi01

If you dislike humans so much then the problem is you. Unless you are a psycho bent on exterminating human race, you should know that it's people that make the world interesting.... Otherwise earth is just another characterless dot in the universe! Also selfish narcissists like you definitely feel that your own existence is good because somehow you are special compared to rest of the humanity.

This gets funnier and funnier. Especially the comment about

then the problem is you

coming from probably the most negative, complainer on this forum

Find where I have said anything about not liking humans.
And tell me how much more interesting 7 billion humans make the world than say a paltry 3.5 billion humans. But better than that, tell me how much more interesting would the Bay Area be with just double its current population. Particularly for a person such as yourself who has so many complaints about the area now and can't wait to "escape" (with the droves, I presume).

Speaking from my own experience, the Bay Area had half the population when I first arrived here as it does now. I don't see a bit of improvement. Just the opposite. Still spectacular for me, but definitely less than when it was half as crowded.

Btw: the earth IS just a dot in the universe. And I don't think I am one bit special. That's why / how I continue to thrive here. Unlike, oh say, someone like yourself who thinks life in the Bay isn't good enough for himself? Speaking of narcissism

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Pietro25

There ought to be a moratorium on azzholes from New York giving their opinion on what should be done in San Francisco (or California).

Usually when you give your opinion on any topic, you do so because you know something about it. People who live in New York do not have this basic criterion. They think because they live in New York their opinions are a priori valid and meaningful.

I'm kind of amazed people pass along these dumb NYC opinion pieces ("Is Oakland the New Brooklyn?" "Is the Mission the New Park Slope?"). Do New York magazines and forums print essays about what New York should do by benefit of the San Francisco experience? They don't.

Agreed. The reason I posted it was to ridicule it.