Current Events > Fake SF Progressive limit heights that block rich white homeowners

(+) Yeah! (+)

To be fair, there's plenty of other places in SF that can be built up for low cost homes, not just the high end tourist areas.

To be fair, there's plenty of other places in SF that can be built up for low cost homes, not just the high end tourist areas.

And this isn't about blocking rich people's views, for the most part, it's about preserving the view for everyone. Chicago has a similar law that prevents buildings from obstructing the lake view.

And this isn't about blocking rich people's views, for the most part,

Yeah why should an area with access to bart and public transit have high density

Yes it is.

And this isn't about blocking rich people's views, for the most part, it's about preserving the view for everyone. Chicago has a similar law that prevents buildings from obstructing the lake view.

If it was, then other cities wouldn't have these laws as well.

You can't be pro nature then support obstructing bay/lake/ocean views with high rises.

As I stated you could build these high rises anywhere else, not in the middle of a tourist district.

I care more about people having housing than I do about them having an ideal view of the water.
Height limits are bad and are anti-housing.

As I stated you could build these high rises anywhere else, not in the middle of a tourist district.

Yes you can. Higher density housing means you don't have to build out as far and sprawl. Density is the pro-nature position.

Why not just tear up the city, state, and national parks then and build them there.

If it was, then other cities wouldn't have these laws as well.

You can't be pro nature then support obstructing bay/lake/ocean views with high rises.

As I stated you could build these high rises anywhere else, not in the middle of a tourist district.

Or we can just build high density in existing locations that are already close to downtown areas with public transportation and lots of jobs.
If they had done high density from the start, think how much more public nature areas they could have

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/d/d95df9f9.jpg

Have you ever been to SF? The whole waterfront from the Ferry Building to Fisherman's Wharf is open to the public. Tourists will always have their precious views of Alcatraz and the Bay Bridge.

And YIMBYs aren't asking for 50 story high rises everywhere. More mid density (5 to 10 stories) would be a big improvement.

I mean you care so much about solving homeless and nothing should stand in the way, about 1/6 of that picture is green.

Fuck city and state parks right?

To be fair, there's plenty of other places in SF that can be built up for low cost homes, not just the high end tourist areas.

And this isn't about blocking rich people's views, for the most part, it's about preserving the view for everyone. Chicago has a similar law that prevents buildings from obstructing the lake view.

Feel like you're agreeing with me in an aggressive tone which is weird.

I don't see how I'm agreeing at all. We should be building up all over the city. Sorry if I seem aggressive, I'm just passionate about this stuff, especially since I live in the Bay.

To be fair, there's plenty of other places in SF that can be built up for low cost homes, not just the high end tourist areas.

And this isn't about blocking rich people's views, for the most part, it's about preserving the view for everyone. Chicago has a similar law that prevents buildings from obstructing the lake view.

uh, Considering the location alone nobody besides other rich people would be able to afford a home there no matter how much they optimized space sort of china style caged homes.

That's fine. It means less rich people driving up prices in other neighborhoods. More housing allows for a filtering of a sort to happen. Would you rather rich people buy houses in low and middle income areas, or them spend their money buying luxury shit. All additional housing helps.

More housing in general slows down price increases or pushes down prices.

The average cost for a home anywhere there is over 1 million dollars and theres no shortage of other not so rich people ready to swoop in and snatch them up immediately.

It sucks but the demand for citys like SF is are simply to high.

ummm..so what would they do if it passed, tear down all the commercial buildings to build apartments and condos?

it's not like property right on the water would be affordable or anything. the rich people would just move closer to the water

What would happen when they moved

What would happen when they moved

Trickle down economics?

lmfao

Do you think a higher supply of housing leads to slower price increases and lower prices in general?

Really not sure what "affordable housing" even entails in this area. Like both of those areas are still going to be million+ dollar properties lol end of the day its rich people moving in on rich people.

Which is why I said to build it in a different area. But these people want billionaires to have condos overlooking the bay for whatever reason.

Do you think building million dollar condos in downtown San Francisco will solve the homeless problem?

If that's the case, why does NYC still have homeless people?

Really not sure what "affordable housing" even entails in this area. Like both of those areas are still going to be million+ dollar properties lol end of the day its rich people moving in on rich people.

Which is why I said to build it in a different area. But these people want billionaires to have condos overlooking the bay for whatever reason.

rent out their old place for 5k a month?

Really not sure what "affordable housing" even entails in this area. Like both of those areas are still going to be million+ dollar properties lol end of the day its rich people moving in on rich people.

Building luxury or higher-end apartments draws higher-income renters out of yesterdays luxury apartments and into the new luxury apartments. Increased vacancies in yesterdays luxury apartments attract higher-income residents whove been living in mid-level apartments. As new construction creates more vacancies, rents come down. That effect filters throughout the housing supply, lowering rents all the way down. Economists call this filtering, and its an effect thoroughly established in academic and industry studies of rental housing markets.

Theres no doubt that filtering occurs when enough new apartments are built. It cant occur, though, if government prevents developers from creating those new high-end apartments. The problem in recent years has not been the creation of too many high-end apartments, but too few.

Do you think building million dollar condos in downtown San Francisco will solve the homeless problem?

If that's the case, why does NYC still have homeless people?

Again, that's fine. Let them fight and leave cheaper housing for everyone else.

Where is that cheaper housing going to pop up? In the neighborhoods they spent the past few decades gentrifying? Lol

I get the notion and I agree with it but none of this seems like an effort to provide affordable housing.

Do you think building million dollar condos in downtown San Francisco will solve the homeless problem?

If that's the case, why does NYC still have homeless people?

Wouldn't it be more effective and direct to build rent controlled affordable housing in a different area of the town instead of doing any that tho

Wouldn't it be more effective and direct to build rent controlled affordable housing in a different area of the town instead of doing any that tho