[muninn_]

Well, the market is sorting things out right now isn't it? Rent is really high and there are long commutes. So how exactly does turning SV into a Tokyo solve this problem?

It doesn't. There are far more people who want to live in the Valley than there are homes and building homes won't solve that problem. If anything, they need to stop building so people are forced to relocate to other parts of the world. The insane concentration of technologists in one area is not good for the world.

And yes 300sqft is small.

[prawn]

Is it though? From afar, I thought the general criticism was that regulations were impairing development? Or is the NIMBY reaction from existing owners considered part of the market in a situation like this? (Honestly don't know.)

Bringing some Tokyo public transport wouldn't hurt, right? That would help with the commutes and make living further out viable.

[muninn_]

Well you won't find any argument from me with respect to public transportation. It needs a massive improvement nationwide.

I just don't like the knee-jerk reaction from others (not you necessarily) who just call everything NIMBYism as if people who own property have 0 rights or concerns. I own and live in a small condo. Like under 100k in value. I have a cool little view of the city, nothing special. I bought it because of that and other factor. You're damn right I would be upset if somebody wanted to build a skyscraper blocking my view, it literally affects the quality of my life. Now, that certainly isn't justification in itself to block construction, but on the other end it very much seems as though, from the other end of the discussion, that my concerns would be deemed irrelevant.

How would you (not you specifically) if people started tearing down trees in your neighborhood to turn it into a strip mall so cars could get through? How bullshit is that?

Overall I just want to see a more balanced discussion, so I call out what I see.