I think it’s perfectly reasonable to be upset if someone wants to build a 25 story high-rise next to your longtime home. That can turn a calm area into one with years of noisy construction, construction traffic, more normal traffic once it’s built, and potentially put your backyard in its shadow.
I’m not sure how property taxes work in California, but in my state the increases are capped each year and are reassessed when a home is bought by a new owner. So telling them to move somewhere else not only hurts their ability to age in place, but could also have a significant impact on property taxes, to the point they may not be able to afford the move if on a fixed income… at least not within the area they call home.
I find it interesting how excited YIMBY people get about making people feel like they’re no longer welcome in their own neighborhoods. They seem to claim to have all this empathy, yet they can’t seem to put themselves in the shoes of one of these home owners.
I think it's reasonable for the existing residents to be upset. I just don't think they should get an effective veto on new housing construction in some of the most in-demand places to live in the entire country. There are far more pressing national needs than the ability of retirees to freeze their neighbourhood in time.
There's plenty of opportunity to build apartments for old people to live in the area they're already in, if they can tolerate the shock and indignity of trading a detached single family home with a back yard for an apartment.
The NIMBY old people in SF have Prop 13, so they pay only a tiny fraction of property taxes of everyone else, so they never move. Instead of having an ongoing property tax reduction scheme for elderly, disabled, poor, and disadvantaged people, Prop 13 was a one-time, arbitrary cut in 1978. NIMBYs do everything they can to prevent new construction, ADUs, zoning changes, and tax reform.
It really isn’t reasonable. If they don’t like it they should buy the land to keep it that way. Blocking development in this way is effectively a subsidy to the abutters.
If this logic was applied to everything else people would riot. Imagine if existing local businesses could veto a new competitor opening up because it would create "too much traffic," or if you could veto someone buying a car because it takes up space on your street. We only accept this anti-competitive, anti-growth mindset when it comes to housing.
> or if you could veto someone buying a car because it takes up space on your street.
Someone just moved in down the street from me with multiple work trucks and a trailer that they park on the street. It’s created a choke point in the primary means in and out of the neighborhood. They treat the area like a private cul-de-sac. I wish someone could have vetoed all of that stuff. It’s makes every trip to and from my home worse. I’m pretty sure they are also violating parking laws by parking too close to stop signs and intersections with crosswalks.
I don’t want to be that guy that calls the city to complain, but I think about it and curse to myself every time I need to navigate their maze of commercial vehicles in my residential area.
> We only accept this anti-competitive, anti-growth mindset when it comes to housing.
I don’t think this is the right framing of the mindset. They bought homes under certain conditions and with certain expectations. They would not have bought those homes if they were next to a high-rise. They want to maintain the environment that made the area valuable to them in the first place.
It’s not all that different than what happened during the national highway project. Neighborhoods that were once nice had a highway placed next to them that cut them off from the rest of the city and fundamentally changed the experience of living in those areas. Decades later people are still upset and we’ve seen effort to try and right some of those wrongs, but it’s not easy.
The YIMBY people and those who want to reconnect these neighborhoods torn apart by highways, are often of the same mindset and trying to help the same groups of people. Yet the ideas of growth or anti-growth seem selectively applied based on the goal. One could argue the highways were necessary for growth as well, but was it ok to fundamental change or devalue communities to do it? The difference I see is that the SF situation is framed as rich white people, while the highway projects impacted more poor and black communities. If destroying one was wrong, they’re probably both wrong.
Buying a house does not entitle you to a neighborhood, only your house. In any case economics sorts this out. Buy everything around you at market price if it’s a big deal.
When a majority of the homeowners have the same opinion, that is what drives the neighborhood. On a larger scale, it’s what drives the direction of a community or city. This is democracy, where the citizens vote to influence the direction of the place they live… rather than leaving everyone at the mercy of whoever has the deepest pockets.
You are silly. Only homeowners get a say? Add renters and they will agree with me, dismantling your silliness. Though I am glad you replied the way you did, at least you’re not shy about classism.
I was a renter for 16 years. I have a house now, but think about going back to renting often. I’m not a big fan of the headaches that come with home ownership.
That said, I’m not sure what your point is here. Renters still vote. Though they don’t have the same skin in the game that a home owner has, they aren’t excluded from the democratic process.
I don’t feel like I changed social classes when moving from an apartment to a house, and don’t think I would lower my social class by going back to renting.
Having some wealthy developers come to town, who aren’t part of the community, and ignore the democratic process for financial gain, sounds like the a more damaging form of classism. We’re seeing this play out in real time with AI data centers. One an hour from me was voted down, but is happening anyway, because the billionaires sued and the town can’t afford to fight corporate lawyers, and folded. Now the town just has to deal with it, and the developers don’t really care what happens them. They aren’t people to them, just impediments.
Zoning only exists because of racism and classism, remember this. After Buchanan v. Warley in 1917, municipalities turned to race-neutral tools like single-family zoning, minimum lot sizes, and setback requirements to indirectly enforce economic and racial segregation. These land-use controls acted as proxies, allowing communities to maintain exclusionary barriers under the guise of local police powers and neighborhood character.
There’s a reason all the people at these things are in the same socioeconomic demographic
Yes, it's disgusting that the people who show up to meetings match the demographics of the neighborhood. Why aren't there more rich immigrants and purple-haired bearded programmers who moved there from the Midwest a year and a half ago?
Those 80 year-olds are going to hold onto their homes for decades!
I thought this footnote from the bottom of the article was interesting:
“When I consider the structure of power in American politics, it often cleaves along lines that have nothing to do with being a billionaire. Homeowners dominate land use politics, professional associations capture licensing rules, industry representatives shape low-salience regulations on their issues because few other people care enough to engage. All of this can produce profoundly unequal outcomes without being the work of a coherent oligarchic class.”
I think it’s perfectly reasonable to be upset if someone wants to build a 25 story high-rise next to your longtime home. That can turn a calm area into one with years of noisy construction, construction traffic, more normal traffic once it’s built, and potentially put your backyard in its shadow.
I’m not sure how property taxes work in California, but in my state the increases are capped each year and are reassessed when a home is bought by a new owner. So telling them to move somewhere else not only hurts their ability to age in place, but could also have a significant impact on property taxes, to the point they may not be able to afford the move if on a fixed income… at least not within the area they call home.
I find it interesting how excited YIMBY people get about making people feel like they’re no longer welcome in their own neighborhoods. They seem to claim to have all this empathy, yet they can’t seem to put themselves in the shoes of one of these home owners.
I think it's reasonable for the existing residents to be upset. I just don't think they should get an effective veto on new housing construction in some of the most in-demand places to live in the entire country. There are far more pressing national needs than the ability of retirees to freeze their neighbourhood in time.
There's plenty of opportunity to build apartments for old people to live in the area they're already in, if they can tolerate the shock and indignity of trading a detached single family home with a back yard for an apartment.
The NIMBY old people in SF have Prop 13, so they pay only a tiny fraction of property taxes of everyone else, so they never move. Instead of having an ongoing property tax reduction scheme for elderly, disabled, poor, and disadvantaged people, Prop 13 was a one-time, arbitrary cut in 1978. NIMBYs do everything they can to prevent new construction, ADUs, zoning changes, and tax reform.
It really isn’t reasonable. If they don’t like it they should buy the land to keep it that way. Blocking development in this way is effectively a subsidy to the abutters.
If this logic was applied to everything else people would riot. Imagine if existing local businesses could veto a new competitor opening up because it would create "too much traffic," or if you could veto someone buying a car because it takes up space on your street. We only accept this anti-competitive, anti-growth mindset when it comes to housing.
> or if you could veto someone buying a car because it takes up space on your street.
Someone just moved in down the street from me with multiple work trucks and a trailer that they park on the street. It’s created a choke point in the primary means in and out of the neighborhood. They treat the area like a private cul-de-sac. I wish someone could have vetoed all of that stuff. It’s makes every trip to and from my home worse. I’m pretty sure they are also violating parking laws by parking too close to stop signs and intersections with crosswalks.
I don’t want to be that guy that calls the city to complain, but I think about it and curse to myself every time I need to navigate their maze of commercial vehicles in my residential area.
> We only accept this anti-competitive, anti-growth mindset when it comes to housing.
I don’t think this is the right framing of the mindset. They bought homes under certain conditions and with certain expectations. They would not have bought those homes if they were next to a high-rise. They want to maintain the environment that made the area valuable to them in the first place.
It’s not all that different than what happened during the national highway project. Neighborhoods that were once nice had a highway placed next to them that cut them off from the rest of the city and fundamentally changed the experience of living in those areas. Decades later people are still upset and we’ve seen effort to try and right some of those wrongs, but it’s not easy.
The YIMBY people and those who want to reconnect these neighborhoods torn apart by highways, are often of the same mindset and trying to help the same groups of people. Yet the ideas of growth or anti-growth seem selectively applied based on the goal. One could argue the highways were necessary for growth as well, but was it ok to fundamental change or devalue communities to do it? The difference I see is that the SF situation is framed as rich white people, while the highway projects impacted more poor and black communities. If destroying one was wrong, they’re probably both wrong.
Buying a house does not entitle you to a neighborhood, only your house. In any case economics sorts this out. Buy everything around you at market price if it’s a big deal.
When a majority of the homeowners have the same opinion, that is what drives the neighborhood. On a larger scale, it’s what drives the direction of a community or city. This is democracy, where the citizens vote to influence the direction of the place they live… rather than leaving everyone at the mercy of whoever has the deepest pockets.
You are silly. Only homeowners get a say? Add renters and they will agree with me, dismantling your silliness. Though I am glad you replied the way you did, at least you’re not shy about classism.
I was a renter for 16 years. I have a house now, but think about going back to renting often. I’m not a big fan of the headaches that come with home ownership.
That said, I’m not sure what your point is here. Renters still vote. Though they don’t have the same skin in the game that a home owner has, they aren’t excluded from the democratic process.
I don’t feel like I changed social classes when moving from an apartment to a house, and don’t think I would lower my social class by going back to renting.
Having some wealthy developers come to town, who aren’t part of the community, and ignore the democratic process for financial gain, sounds like the a more damaging form of classism. We’re seeing this play out in real time with AI data centers. One an hour from me was voted down, but is happening anyway, because the billionaires sued and the town can’t afford to fight corporate lawyers, and folded. Now the town just has to deal with it, and the developers don’t really care what happens them. They aren’t people to them, just impediments.
Put a 22 story building on the site of the Marina Safeway? Ugh.
Besides, most of the jobs in SF will be done by AI soon. Look what's happening to SOMA.
Zoning only exists because of racism and classism, remember this. After Buchanan v. Warley in 1917, municipalities turned to race-neutral tools like single-family zoning, minimum lot sizes, and setback requirements to indirectly enforce economic and racial segregation. These land-use controls acted as proxies, allowing communities to maintain exclusionary barriers under the guise of local police powers and neighborhood character.
There’s a reason all the people at these things are in the same socioeconomic demographic
Yes, it's disgusting that the people who show up to meetings match the demographics of the neighborhood. Why aren't there more rich immigrants and purple-haired bearded programmers who moved there from the Midwest a year and a half ago?
Those 80 year-olds are going to hold onto their homes for decades!
Maybe not, but decades from now those same homes will be held onto by 80 year-olds.
If this is a problem that solves itself, it would have solved itself already.
what exactly do you think the problem is?
Zero growth neighborhoods and exponential housing prices.
How do you think major cities in the US grew in the 1800s? It wasn't because of perfect zoning or astronomical land prices.
Usually the only people who have the free time to go to these meetings are retirees, it's not matching the demographics of the neighborhood.
I thought this footnote from the bottom of the article was interesting:
“When I consider the structure of power in American politics, it often cleaves along lines that have nothing to do with being a billionaire. Homeowners dominate land use politics, professional associations capture licensing rules, industry representatives shape low-salience regulations on their issues because few other people care enough to engage. All of this can produce profoundly unequal outcomes without being the work of a coherent oligarchic class.”