NIMBY-ism has served baby boomers and the one-percenters quite well. But eventually the baby boomers will give way, and younger people will take over – will they demand more housing be built, or just pay the prices we leave them?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/business/economy/san-francisco-housing-tech-boom-sf-barf.html?_r=0
More texture to the Bay Area housing situation, which is an exaggerated example of SD:
http://www.curbed.com/2016/2/24/11102278/bay-area-housing-crisis-bubble
“The average income in the top 20 percent of Bay Area households is $263,000 greater than the bottom 20 percent—a spread that is 50 percent higher than the nationwide gap of $178,000.”
San Francisco area is always gonna be a no-go for new housing on undeveloped land. They’ve got the environmental protection jazz down to a science to stop all development.
I’m with the rich folks. Stop all significant residential development on prime open land.
Let ’em eat Utah.
I have to laugh at all the youngsters who view the unafforability of SF is a new phenomenon. SF has been elitist for a very long time. When my family came to the Bay Area in the late 60s, SF was already the domain of megacorps: BofA, Chevron, Bechtel, PG&E, AT&T, Southern Pacific, Transamerica. My father rode the G bus (Greyhound) in from Pleasant Hill. There’s a reason BART was built primarily to bring East Bay workers into SF. The logos change, but the grind remains the same. The latest newcomers have a heightened sense of entitlement that they should actually get to live in SF proper. Good luck with that.
Facebook campaigns mean nothing. The people that own properties don’t even log in to read them. Even if they did read the campaign they don’t care.
Whine and cry all you want you’re not going to get housing for free.
Try working and saving or getting an education + a higher paying job. You don’t even need to go to college. There’s all kinds of blue collar jobs that pay very well. (electrician, remodeling, etc, etc, etc)
Maybe even (god forbid) consider moving out of San Francisco. That being said I love San Francisco. It’s a beautiful city.
Forcing more housing where housing is most desired makes the existing housing less valuable.
Well, I think we can all agree that San Francisco is a special place, in that, we can’t feel joy like them.
We know it. They know it. So let us not ever pretend:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx81l9QgXfA
@shadash
>Try working and saving or getting an education + a higher paying job. You don’t even need to go to college. There’s all kinds of blue collar jobs that pay very well. (electrician, remodeling, etc, etc, etc)
Well, we can say that, but for majority of the people, it’s unrealistic to believe they can save $200k+ for a 20% downpayment (well, that’s now. 10 years from now it’ll be $400k).
What’s needed is more affordable housing for all income levels. The city will eventually culturally stagnate if only rich people can afford to live within 30 minutes of SF.
@Myraid
>Well, we can say that, but for majority of the people, it’s unrealistic to believe they can save $200k+ for a 20% downpayment (well, that’s now. 10 years from now it’ll be $400k).
This is speculation. San Francisco unlike other locations has tech opportunities galore. Check out this recent Gawker link… http://valleywag.gawker.com/average-tech-wages-up-to-291-497-in-san-mateo-county-162575509 In it you’ll find that the average Menlo Park tech salary is 291k per year. This “majority” you mention is who? The people that work in coffee shops or change tires? Well guess what in other cities they can’t afford to live in the best parts of town either.