So you say that prices can’t inflate forever, then I identify inflation (you know, based on the word you chose) then you criticize me say you’re not talking about inflation? Right.
Sure cities are delegated entities generally, but the CA constitution has home rule for cities that claim it. On matters of municipal vs. statewide nterest where state law conflicts with city law, then home rule city law prevails. Land use is considered municipal interest generally. Did you know that? You keep making assumptions and so many of them are wrong. I guess, cool story, bro.
If you understand the arguments, but still stick with your original position, because you value improving your own lot (when you’re already quite comfortable) significantly more than avoiding harming everyone else, then it seems quite reasonable to characterize your position as profoundly immoral. Or am I missing something?
Well, inflation can’t inflate forever, really. At some point, we’re going to have to realize taht a 7.25 Quadrillion an hour Minimum wage is a bit too much, and drop some zeroes from our currency.
However, I think the point that was made and that you are avoiding is that housing prices cannot beat the rate of inflation forever.
Especially given that, the reason that housing prices are high where you are is because of the services and opportunities that are available in your area.
Should this NIMBYISM continue, then the services and opportunities that are available in your area will decrease. At a certain point, people will no longer have a desire to live in that area, they will have all taken your advice and gone somewhere else, and developed a growing economic center there, probably with its share of housing problems, leaving you with a nice house, in a place that no one wants to live anymore.
Your gain is not only selfish, but shortsighted as well.
Not sure how that in any way addresses the idea that the communities are distorting the real value of the land away from a free market. It is in fact, entirely unrelated.
In any case, you do realize that state constitutions are not nearly as sacrosanct or hard to change as the US constitution, right? If the state wants to change your home rule, then it can.
I’d rather it didn’t, as I think that municipalities can often better address the needs of their citizens than the state can, but if it is shown that municipalities cannot be entrusted to use home rule responsibly, as you are demonstrating, then that can be changed.
Just as a datapoint, the Mercury News had a big article on commuting in the Bay Area today. (No link since I hit the monthly article limit, but it should be easy to find.)
169,000 people are commuting from outside the Bay Area - which means outside of Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, Napa counties, etc. Commuters from Pleasanton, say, don’t count. The average one way commute from San Joaquin county is 73 minutes. Which seems low to me, and includes people who carpool or pay for access to carpool lanes.
There is a picture of a jammed road - 205 in Tracy. It is jammed at 5:45 am.
You haven’t articulated any belief beyond “I want to maximize my wealth in the short term at the expense of everyone else and probably my own long-term interests.”
I expect a thoughtful person to take other values into consideration, including the long-term interest of yourself and your offspring.
As has been said above, unless you care to address the full range of issues, including poverty, public health, environmental costs, the future of the local and national economies, then it seems that your position is profoundly immoral and shortsighted
A friend of mine in San Francisco told me today that the failure to increase the housing supply is already starting to kill job growth in the area. “People aren’t happy here and only the richest companies can afford to expand,” he said.
Once that worm turns, property values will stop increasing. Then what?
I don’t know if you’re missing something. We all do things and live a lifestyle that puts our own self interests above those of others. I don’t consider paying a premium to eat out rather than cook in and donate the difference to be immoral. Do you? If you don’t, then this is simply a difference of degree rather than of kind. Unless a person is at the very bottom of wealth and income, then they are doing the same thing.
Or, prices will stabalize, or wages will rise, or value will increase, or a host of other possibilities. But I’m pretty comfortable saying that barring some great natural disaster in the region, it’s going to continue to be in high demand for quite some time. If prices stabilize, I’m fine with that too.
It was in direct response to local control vs. statewide control and cities as delegated entities.
So are these people being forced, or are they making a choice? I did something similar for a while - a 4+ hour commute each day. I wasn’t forced - I made a choice.
Actually - it’s quite a bit more complex than that. I think the pendulum of state vs. local control is shifting more towards the state in a way I disapprove of. I think that local majorities of cities are better decision makers for their own residents, and maximum utilization of land is not a desirable goal.
And based on my assessment, my offspring will have more opportunity than I had, as I had more opportunity than every generation preceding me.
Jobs have started to expand to outer areas due to increased costs which is to be expected. Companies like Pandora, Uber, and others find nearby Oakland cheaper, etc. But there’s this:
I think this is a hell of a twist. In my moral system, it’s okay to go out to eat. That’s not a big deal. But it’s not okay to advocate that government make policy to benefit me and a small, select group of affluent people when that policy would cause harm to pretty much everyone else, and especially struggling people. Just every day, reasonable, common sense morality, IMO.
I’d just ask you to consider that maybe you’re rationalizing and twisting morality into knots because it benefits you to do so. Or maybe say something like “yes, this is probably morally wrong, but I’m willing to live with it for the benefit to my family”.
It doesn’t even rate as morally wrong to me. Not even close. The point I was making is that everyone makes choices to further their own self interests. Almost certainly there is more that everyone could do for the greater good but choose not to because of individual interests.
The money you splurge on a fancy meal, a nicer car, or other personal luxeries could all be used to help those with less. But buying a new car isnt morally wrong. Neither is wanting to preserve a neighborhood value, saftey, and character by opposing 8 story high density rentals next to low density suburban single family homes. To say that the high density rentals are the only moral choice is laughably absurd.
Oppose any building you want - that’s fine with me. It’s when you would advocate that local government prevent the free market from working to alleviate shortages, as it would if it was allowed, in very important things like housing, that it gets into “morally wrong” territory.
Like any reasonable person would understand, when I said housing prices can’t rise forever, I was referring to the prices in inflation adjusted dollars. This is the meaning any mentally competent adult, including a supposedly intelligent tech worker, would understand it to be. And that goes to the point you ducked - the reason why high real estate prices are a rat hole for wealth in California - what I refer to as a scam - is that after prices stop increasing in real terms (because rents have risen above what enough potential renters can pay) - it’s a bad idea to buy. Because the interest and real estate taxes on that 2 million dollar bungalo are burning away most of the money you make at work, with none of that money going to equity. Or you can choose to rent. Or you can choose to commute. Burn your money or your time, either way it sucks.
The State is (as in, the 50 states) are the sovereign entities named in the Constitution. If a particular state wants to yank municipal control of something, it’s 100% legal and normal. Happens all the time in small, corrupt communities for a variety of reasons…
There are 7.7 billion people on this planet. They can’t all live precisely where they’d wish. Do you want to address the full range of issues that makes that a current fact?
Your contribution to the city, was only possible because some other old codger was forced off his spot to provide the higher density that were then new suburbian homes. It served the greater good, it’s given you and yours a good life and grown the city into what you see today. But now a new generation, changing economy etc, require higher density housing, for the workers required to carry the city into tomorrow.
And you know why your complaints will fall on deaf ears in the end? Because you can afford to move elsewhere! In fact, a world of choices is open to you. Unlike those who require this housing.
At some point in your losing battle it will dawn on you that you represent exactly who they need to drive out of the neighbourhood. If an eight story building does it, that’s a feature, not a bug. You’ve largely made your contribution, being nearer retirement than starting out. You have the means to relocate, and you’ll be made wealthy by the steep rise in property values. Not a position that merits a lot of sympathy exactly.
You just don’t want to see change. Unfortunately I very much doubt you can win this.
The article explains that when a math teacher in one San Mateo school left to take a higher-paying job,
Zero. As in none.
San Mateo, as the article notes, is one of the priciest places to live in the U.S., and teachers there are leaving, just as you suggested people should do when they can’t afford to live in pricey neighborhoods. Don’t be surprised when some of your property value goes with them.
That’s a false dichotomy. No one is pointing a gun at these people forcing them to commute, but I rather doubt it is a choice they prefer to make. They are forced into it - or strongly pressured - due to economics.
The story today mentioned a person with a business needing a good amount of space. Rental in San Francisco soared, and moving all his stuff was difficult. He could move to Oakland but rents there would increase also, so he moved to Stockton which has abandoned warehouses. It is clear that he felt he had no alternative but to move.
But how soon is Stockton going to get expensive?
Does it surprise you to learn that we don’t share the same conception of what is moral? Apparently neither do the many many millions of other people who support local control.
You’re right. I mistakenly left out the state component. The point I was making is unchanged though - cities don’t fund teacher wages.
Perfect. San Mateo and other cities in similar situations will need to make a choice. I’m sure their residents can figure a way to meet the needs of the people that live there. I think they should have that choice. For example, my area chooses to supplement Early Reading Intervention by paying for additional staff through donations to the school. We also provide instructional aids and other class resources. I’m sure San Mateo can figure a way to make do.
Earlier people were saying that folks like these are forced to travel a long way. Clearly that’s not true. There are surely many things that people would prefer to do but cannot due to whatever constraints they live under. I’d prefer a different living situation too - cliffside with no one around for 100 acres. But I can’t - due to economics.
But bringing this back to something more specific - Minneapolis recently eliminated single family zoning as a way to alleviate limited housing supply. I think it’s fine if that city wants to do so. Would people be supportive for a state like CA to force this on all the cities in the state?
So parents coughed up the money to fund two teachers (or paras) for one year at **one school **out of the twenty-five in San Mateo. Wow, that’s…unimpressive. Also unrealistic.
Except as I said, your property values are tied to how good the schools are in your area, so you might want to come up with a better solution than a hearty “I’m sure San Mateo can figure out a way to make do.”