[supernova87a]

Well, I think you have 2 factors colliding together.

1) As people moved here and got good jobs, made a life for themselves, they (you and I) inevitably become more sympathetic to and desiring of middle class values. Stability, some measure of comfort, concern about taxation, their local neighborhood. It's understandable, it's natural.

Yet this is in conflict (especially when growth needs to happen) with:

2) The people who have not yet moved here (or become voters, or homeowners in particular), don't get to have a say in the policies that govern a place, yet at some point are the ones who have to live within policies that others decide.

So, a lot of the policies around here favor those who "got theirs" already, and there's very little incentive to fix this. Because the people who it benefits aren't here yet!

I think the question is, what do you do about this conflict, and what do you want a region's population/demographic renewal policy to be? How do you turn over property, wealth, a city/region to the next generation in a way that's sustainable, especially if you want it to grow?

Because right now, it's a "here's what I want for me right now" policy landscape. And that favors old people who own houses in the Bay Area to the detriment of young/poor/up and coming people who want to find a place in the area. The only thing to do is wait for the few % of people to die or move out from frustration, and face high housing prices that preserve everyone else's interests.

It gets masked in terms like "neighborhood preservation" or "local control" (or even using some minorities as a headline grabber, when in the end it actually favors mostly the rich property owners).

It's a big problem.

[satya71]

> The people who have not yet moved here (or become voters, or homeowners in particular), don't get to have a say in the policies that govern a place, yet at some point are the ones who have to live within policies that others decide.

Same story for global warming. The current developed nations got rich (and still getting richer) by burning fossil fuels. But the ones that are trying to grow now are stuck.

Four options: 1. We’re doomed and stuck where we are, 2. Power struggle, 3. New tech provides an out, 4. Voluntary improvement via negotiation.

I’m hoping 3 and 4 work fast.

[ndiscussion]

It's a hot take but you seem truly interested and educated in this matter, have you ever read this?

http://editions-hache.com/essais/pdf/kaczynski2.pdf

Very depressing take on things, but ultimately I believe it proves that #1 is the only possibility. When it was written perhaps #2 was possible.

[satya71]

Is this the same Unabomber guy? If so, please don't spread.

[ndiscussion]

I think your analysis is spot-on. Those existing NIMBY's bought their house with an expectation, and they vote accordingly.

I don't think there's really a way forward without torching rule of law. They don't want the place to be amenable to new/young people, and they make the rules.

It's unfortunate that big tech decided to make this place their home, perhaps with covid and remote work it will go back to a dreamy boomer-land.

[km3r]

These selfish NIMBY assholes have been borrowing from their cities future as they both condemn newcomers, tax them extra (prop 13), refuse to build new housing for them, and then profit off the induced housing demand.

[jariel]

The selfish assholes that think they can tell people who live in other communities what those communities ought to be - are the the root of the problem.

There are vast, open, free spaces for people to build and live in communities as they so choose.

If people want to live in homes and not high rises, it's absolutely their choice, and visa versa. Anyone who wants to live among them, in homes, is free to do that. If they want to live in high rises, they can go to where there are high rises, or where there are those who want to build them.

[supernova87a]

Are there situations where the people in control cannot even change the system if they wanted to, based on the interests that have been set up? And situations where a minority's interest in preserving the status quo prevent what could be an overall better situation for everyone else?

Also, this sounds a lot like, "As long as you're under my roof you'll follow my rules, young man". Which is not always reflective of a healthy situation.

[ndiscussion]

You generally have to be 18 to move to another city.

[d1zzy]

An interesting proposal I've seen that attempts to still save the retirees from being forced to move out for not paying their taxes vs houses locked at a certain rate for too long would be to recover the FMV rate owned taxes upon selling.

Currently, not only does the existing homeowner have to pay less taxes (if prices increase over 2% YoY), but later when they sell their house they can cash in the entire difference. That doesn't seem fair if the entire point of Prop 13 was to protect retirees from being kicked out of their house. So instead, make it so that when the house is sold they have to pay in backtaxes all the difference between the FMV based tax and what they actually payed from any profit they are making on the house. Also stop all means of being able to pass the house between generations without re-assessment (that is currently possible in many states in CA).

[supernova87a]

I heard this is done in some parts of Texas actually (?).

Property taxes go up in a more sane way, and if you can't afford it, you get it tacked on to the sale of your home at the end...

[davidw]

The way forward is not to 'torch the rule of law'.

There are plenty of ways to do things. Oregon just passed a housing law (HB 2001) that re-legalizes "missing middle" housing for instance, by right, in all our cities.

In other words, you take some of the zoning control away from hyper-NIMBY local jurisdictions.

[ndiscussion]

So "torch the will of local citizens" instead? Why should the rest of the state get to decide what they do in their neighborhoods?

As long as you agree with the majority of the state, it works out for you, but it's a bold power grab that may not end well in other situations.

[davidw]

Larger political entities can consider more than the narrow, selfish interests of a few "I've got mine" NIMBYs, such as future residents, the racist history of zoning, and the impact on the environment of forcing people to commute a long ways.

Local control in places like Palo Alto is two wolves and a sheep voting for what to have for dinner.

[ndiscussion]

Perhaps the new residents could consider moving literally anywhere else?

[davidw]

Some of us would like our children to be able to live in the place they are growing up. And we value what newcomers and immigrants bring to the table in terms of hard work, new ideas, energy, and so on.

Also, one of the easiest ways to make people better off is to let them move to where the jobs are. That used to be very common in the United States. That has been stunted in some part by rigid land use laws that pull up the ladder behind the people who got in while the getting was good.

There is a lot of work in economics showing the benefits of clustering, rather than having a talented up and coming person move to, say, Cyanide Springs Oklahoma because it's cheap.

[onethought]

> as you agree with the majority of the state, it works out for you

So democracy?

[ndiscussion]

https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-ga...

Look at this chart. The majority should not always control the few.

edit: never thought I'd see anti-gay-marriage on HN but here we are.

[onethought]

Bad faith response. But I'll clarify to be clear:

I'm Not from the US, but from a country with overwhelming support for same-sex marriage. I'm also from a country that has a proper democracy where voter turn out is 98+% and first-past the post isn't a thing.

What is the alternative you suggest... you hope you get a ruler who agrees with you? Good luck with that.

[jariel]

"It's unfortunate that big tech decided to make this place their home"

Big Tech was established when much of that area was literally little bits separated by fields and farmland.

I think our living spaces are more important than industry, if we need more housing for Googlers etc. well, there's tons of room in Cali. There are even many areas amenable to more density, it's just not SF or Palo Alto.

I'll bet that in Oakland it's much more possible to build semi-high buildings and fairly dense, modern 4 story buildings for the middle class, it's just that fewer people want to live there.

I wonder if Apple and Google get together and bought a large plot of land south of Morgan Hill, they could build a mini city to house 500K people and frankly run the gauntlet of whatever they wanted in terms of setting the rules, and there are at least 500K migrants who'd be happy to live there.

Imagine 'Facebook Campus' but now, your home as well. What's Orwellian to you and I would probably be fine for others. And of course, less cynically, it wouldn't need to be like that either.

[ndiscussion]

I am surprised that they don't do just that.

But, they do something similar - they open offices in other cities until the cost of living rises to match San Francisco (see Portland and Seattle). It's just not in California.