What's the best major city in California and why?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Best city in California?
San Francisco
20%
 20%  [ 7 ]
San Diego
23%
 23%  [ 8 ]
Los Angeles
50%
 50%  [ 17 ]
San Jose
5%
 5%  [ 2 ]
Total Votes : 34

Author Message
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 13703

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:10 am    Post subject:

slavavov wrote:

My issue is not so much with consumerism, but with how the tech industry has gobbled up what used to be (somewhat) affordable housing and priced out of the reach of anyone not in that industry. Obviously they deserve the big money they're making, and there's nothing wrong with having these yuppie neighborhoods per se. These neighborhoods are a problem because they've forced out the working class people who used to live there, but they're also a symptom of the real problem, which, like you said, is the flaws of our capitalistic system and the lack of controls to make sure it doesn't devour anyone who isn't rich or well off.

I grew up in Santa Monica in a borderline upper-middle class neighborhood, so while I don't like blind and conspicuous consumerism that people engage in only as a sort of symbol of their socioeconomic class, I grew up around it so I know it's not evil and that there's a place for it. When I drink beer, I admit I do prefer Bud Lite because I'm just trying to get drunk with my friends while saving money, but if that hipster in SF wants a $10 handcrafted beer, I have no problem with that.

My beef with that industry also has to do with the attitude some of them had that was described in those articles. Some of these people tend to be socially awkward and lacking empathy, and when they become rich these qualities become obvious to the public. Money doesn't corrupt people, it makes you more of who you are.

I think some neighborhoods need to be kept off limits to these nouveau riche people so that the working class and poor can also have their own neighborhoods where they can raise their kids and live in peace without worrying about whether their new landlord will kick them out because their rent just increased 50%.

And in the interest of fairness, I do want to emphasize that there are some great things the tech industry is doing, such as philanthropy and giving their employees major perks, plus of course the technology itself.

I just think that sometimes when you solve problems, new problems may be created at the same time.

I hear you, I do. Like I said, I agree Big Tech is sort of the proximate cause to a lot of issues in the Bay Area. It has brought a lot more people into the area and then priced out the lower-working class. But that simply requires more housing to be built, go to Tokyo which is equally earthquake prone and you'll see mega skyscrapers. In SF, try to build a skyscraper and you end up with people on Quora complaining about the beautiful skyline being ruined (seriously? who cares, you don't live on the ocean!). And honestly SF is fairly dense as is, let's talk about the suburban wasteland that is San Jose all the way up to SF on the peninsula and Berkeley in the East Bay.

Anyway, the point is that yes I agree people are being priced out, and 24 is probably right that simply building new housing doesn't solve all the issues of gentrification. But it's a start, and it drives me crazy when people scapegoat Big Tech precisely because then it's easy for NIMBYs to continue to shift blame, and that stops meaningful work from getting done.

(I have no opinion on whether rich tech people are worse than regular rich people, but I guess well off people tend to be unempathetic in general. I'd be surprised if the average tech worker weren't more empathetic than the average banker though.)
_________________
https://j.gifs.com/Rnqnbk.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
slavavov
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 4232
Location: Santa Monica

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:21 am    Post subject:

tox wrote:
slavavov wrote:

My issue is not so much with consumerism, but with how the tech industry has gobbled up what used to be (somewhat) affordable housing and priced out of the reach of anyone not in that industry. Obviously they deserve the big money they're making, and there's nothing wrong with having these yuppie neighborhoods per se. These neighborhoods are a problem because they've forced out the working class people who used to live there, but they're also a symptom of the real problem, which, like you said, is the flaws of our capitalistic system and the lack of controls to make sure it doesn't devour anyone who isn't rich or well off.

I grew up in Santa Monica in a borderline upper-middle class neighborhood, so while I don't like blind and conspicuous consumerism that people engage in only as a sort of symbol of their socioeconomic class, I grew up around it so I know it's not evil and that there's a place for it. When I drink beer, I admit I do prefer Bud Lite because I'm just trying to get drunk with my friends while saving money, but if that hipster in SF wants a $10 handcrafted beer, I have no problem with that.

My beef with that industry also has to do with the attitude some of them had that was described in those articles. Some of these people tend to be socially awkward and lacking empathy, and when they become rich these qualities become obvious to the public. Money doesn't corrupt people, it makes you more of who you are.

I think some neighborhoods need to be kept off limits to these nouveau riche people so that the working class and poor can also have their own neighborhoods where they can raise their kids and live in peace without worrying about whether their new landlord will kick them out because their rent just increased 50%.

And in the interest of fairness, I do want to emphasize that there are some great things the tech industry is doing, such as philanthropy and giving their employees major perks, plus of course the technology itself.

I just think that sometimes when you solve problems, new problems may be created at the same time.

I hear you, I do. Like I said, I agree Big Tech is sort of the proximate cause to a lot of issues in the Bay Area. It has brought a lot more people into the area and then priced out the lower-working class. But that simply requires more housing to be built, go to Tokyo which is equally earthquake prone and you'll see mega skyscrapers. In SF, try to build a skyscraper and you end up with people on Quora complaining about the beautiful skyline being ruined (seriously? who cares, you don't live on the ocean!). And honestly SF is fairly dense as is, let's talk about the suburban wasteland that is San Jose all the way up to SF on the peninsula and Berkeley in the East Bay.

Anyway, the point is that yes I agree people are being priced out, and 24 is probably right that simply building new housing doesn't solve all the issues of gentrification. But it's a start, and it drives me crazy when people scapegoat Big Tech precisely because then it's easy for NIMBYs to continue to shift blame, and that stops meaningful work from getting done.

(I have no opinion on whether rich tech people are worse than regular rich people, but I guess well off people tend to be unempathetic in general. I'd be surprised if the average tech worker weren't more empathetic than the average banker though.)

I agree that high rise residential skyscrapers may be the only solution. NYC is even more dense than SF and they've had those old school high rise apt buildings with those stoops that are a ubiquitous part of NYC's culture. I think overpopulation is maybe our biggest societal issue, and since it would be un-American to put a limit on how many kids you can have (like in China), we'll simply have to figure out how to accommodate more people with less space.
_________________
"Lindsay Hunter is starting to make Devean George look like John Stockton" - Bill Walton, Game 4 of the 2002 WCFs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 41226
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:17 am    Post subject:

slavavov wrote:
tox wrote:
slavavov wrote:

My issue is not so much with consumerism, but with how the tech industry has gobbled up what used to be (somewhat) affordable housing and priced out of the reach of anyone not in that industry. Obviously they deserve the big money they're making, and there's nothing wrong with having these yuppie neighborhoods per se. These neighborhoods are a problem because they've forced out the working class people who used to live there, but they're also a symptom of the real problem, which, like you said, is the flaws of our capitalistic system and the lack of controls to make sure it doesn't devour anyone who isn't rich or well off.

I grew up in Santa Monica in a borderline upper-middle class neighborhood, so while I don't like blind and conspicuous consumerism that people engage in only as a sort of symbol of their socioeconomic class, I grew up around it so I know it's not evil and that there's a place for it. When I drink beer, I admit I do prefer Bud Lite because I'm just trying to get drunk with my friends while saving money, but if that hipster in SF wants a $10 handcrafted beer, I have no problem with that.

My beef with that industry also has to do with the attitude some of them had that was described in those articles. Some of these people tend to be socially awkward and lacking empathy, and when they become rich these qualities become obvious to the public. Money doesn't corrupt people, it makes you more of who you are.

I think some neighborhoods need to be kept off limits to these nouveau riche people so that the working class and poor can also have their own neighborhoods where they can raise their kids and live in peace without worrying about whether their new landlord will kick them out because their rent just increased 50%.

And in the interest of fairness, I do want to emphasize that there are some great things the tech industry is doing, such as philanthropy and giving their employees major perks, plus of course the technology itself.

I just think that sometimes when you solve problems, new problems may be created at the same time.

I hear you, I do. Like I said, I agree Big Tech is sort of the proximate cause to a lot of issues in the Bay Area. It has brought a lot more people into the area and then priced out the lower-working class. But that simply requires more housing to be built, go to Tokyo which is equally earthquake prone and you'll see mega skyscrapers. In SF, try to build a skyscraper and you end up with people on Quora complaining about the beautiful skyline being ruined (seriously? who cares, you don't live on the ocean!). And honestly SF is fairly dense as is, let's talk about the suburban wasteland that is San Jose all the way up to SF on the peninsula and Berkeley in the East Bay.

Anyway, the point is that yes I agree people are being priced out, and 24 is probably right that simply building new housing doesn't solve all the issues of gentrification. But it's a start, and it drives me crazy when people scapegoat Big Tech precisely because then it's easy for NIMBYs to continue to shift blame, and that stops meaningful work from getting done.

(I have no opinion on whether rich tech people are worse than regular rich people, but I guess well off people tend to be unempathetic in general. I'd be surprised if the average tech worker weren't more empathetic than the average banker though.)

I agree that high rise residential skyscrapers may be the only solution. NYC is even more dense than SF and they've had those old school high rise apt buildings with those stoops that are a ubiquitous part of NYC's culture. I think overpopulation is maybe our biggest societal issue, and since it would be un-American to put a limit on how many kids you can have (like in China), we'll simply have to figure out how to accommodate more people with less space.


Not necessarily. As technology expands, there will be fewer reasons for people to have to concentrate in specific areas too conduct day to day life. People used to have to I've near their offices or factories etc. As automation becomes more prevalent, it will become less necessary to live in dense communities. I think the planet becoming less inhabitable due to changes in climate is likely to be a bigger issue that using up the available land (and resources) because of population explosion.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
CandyCanes
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 Dec 2007
Posts: 28486
Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Washington, DC

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:58 am    Post subject:

Goldenwest wrote:
Sam Diego and Los Angeles tied. They have the best beaches in the state. I’ll take them over the rocky, cold, shark infested waters of Northern California anytime.


Which beaches, other than Santa Monica/Venice, are actually *in* LA, though? Malibu is actually pretty far away.
_________________
Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZrbEjppnd4
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
AY2043
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Posts: 9773

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:51 am    Post subject:

So I grew up in SD, grew up with tons of family in LA (so visited a lot), currently live in Santa Cruz, work in San Jose/South Bay Area, and also have my GF's family in Oakland. So I've been kind of all over the place in CA.

I'd rank the options as follows:
1. SD
2. LA


3. Oakland (the good parts obviously -- Oakland Hills are really nice, and there's some good nightlife downtown and by Lake Merit).



4. San Jose (BORING)


5. SF (gross, overcrowded, cold, and expensive).

Someone mentioned Santa Cruz earlier in the thread -- can confirm, more fun to visit than to live in, but still a cool place to live nonetheless.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 21793

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:39 am    Post subject:

AY2043 wrote:
So I grew up in SD, grew up with tons of family in LA (so visited a lot), currently live in Santa Cruz, work in San Jose/South Bay Area, and also have my GF's family in Oakland. So I've been kind of all over the place in CA.

I'd rank the options as follows:
1. SD
2. LA


3. Oakland (the good parts obviously -- Oakland Hills are really nice, and there's some good nightlife downtown and by Lake Merit).



4. San Jose (BORING)


5. SF (gross, overcrowded, cold, and expensive).

Someone mentioned Santa Cruz earlier in the thread -- can confirm, more fun to visit than to live in, but still a cool place to live nonetheless.


Loved Santa Cruz when I was there! Lived there for about 5 years. The only thing was that it wasn’t very convenient for everyday living. Nearest IKEA was in Emeryville I think, there was one mall in Capitola, one grocery store back then I think it was a Safeway off Ocean Blvd I think, but loved the restaurants and coffee shops there.

Maybe its different now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 82605
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:05 am    Post subject:

tox wrote:
slavavov wrote:

My issue is not so much with consumerism, but with how the tech industry has gobbled up what used to be (somewhat) affordable housing and priced out of the reach of anyone not in that industry. Obviously they deserve the big money they're making, and there's nothing wrong with having these yuppie neighborhoods per se. These neighborhoods are a problem because they've forced out the working class people who used to live there, but they're also a symptom of the real problem, which, like you said, is the flaws of our capitalistic system and the lack of controls to make sure it doesn't devour anyone who isn't rich or well off.

I grew up in Santa Monica in a borderline upper-middle class neighborhood, so while I don't like blind and conspicuous consumerism that people engage in only as a sort of symbol of their socioeconomic class, I grew up around it so I know it's not evil and that there's a place for it. When I drink beer, I admit I do prefer Bud Lite because I'm just trying to get drunk with my friends while saving money, but if that hipster in SF wants a $10 handcrafted beer, I have no problem with that.

My beef with that industry also has to do with the attitude some of them had that was described in those articles. Some of these people tend to be socially awkward and lacking empathy, and when they become rich these qualities become obvious to the public. Money doesn't corrupt people, it makes you more of who you are.

I think some neighborhoods need to be kept off limits to these nouveau riche people so that the working class and poor can also have their own neighborhoods where they can raise their kids and live in peace without worrying about whether their new landlord will kick them out because their rent just increased 50%.

And in the interest of fairness, I do want to emphasize that there are some great things the tech industry is doing, such as philanthropy and giving their employees major perks, plus of course the technology itself.

I just think that sometimes when you solve problems, new problems may be created at the same time.

I hear you, I do. Like I said, I agree Big Tech is sort of the proximate cause to a lot of issues in the Bay Area. It has brought a lot more people into the area and then priced out the lower-working class. But that simply requires more housing to be built, go to Tokyo which is equally earthquake prone and you'll see mega skyscrapers. In SF, try to build a skyscraper and you end up with people on Quora complaining about the beautiful skyline being ruined (seriously? who cares, you don't live on the ocean!). And honestly SF is fairly dense as is, let's talk about the suburban wasteland that is San Jose all the way up to SF on the peninsula and Berkeley in the East Bay.

Anyway, the point is that yes I agree people are being priced out, and 24 is probably right that simply building new housing doesn't solve all the issues of gentrification. But it's a start, and it drives me crazy when people scapegoat Big Tech precisely because then it's easy for NIMBYs to continue to shift blame, and that stops meaningful work from getting done.

(I have no opinion on whether rich tech people are worse than regular rich people, but I guess well off people tend to be unempathetic in general. I'd be surprised if the average tech worker weren't more empathetic than the average banker though.)


The problem with thinking that there's a market based solution (if only regulators would get out of the way is that the market is not a construct that considers, much less solves, the issues of factors external to the market's inputs or outputs. This is why there will never be a market solution to housing, or comprehensive medical care, or hunger. Because those in need in those areas have no input or output value to the market relative to the cost of their need. The market is simply another form of war (and the likely cause of almost any actual physical war). It is a predatory, competitive battle of control of resources. People who fall outside a particular market are dead to it, literally in many cases. The markets would be fine, healthier in fact, with mass starvation and death of the extraneous.
_________________
Tolerance is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Goldenwest
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2464

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:08 pm    Post subject:

CandyCanes wrote:
Goldenwest wrote:
Sam Diego and Los Angeles tied. They have the best beaches in the state. I’ll take them over the rocky, cold, shark infested waters of Northern California anytime.


Which beaches, other than Santa Monica/Venice, are actually *in* LA, though? Malibu is actually pretty far away.


Manhattan, Hermosa, Marina and playa Del Rey. I would even include Malibu all the way up to county line; it’s county LA but I would consider it all part of ‘LA’
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 13703

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:00 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:

The problem with thinking that there's a market based solution (if only regulators would get out of the way is that the market is not a construct that considers, much less solves, the issues of factors external to the market's inputs or outputs. This is why there will never be a market solution to housing, or comprehensive medical care, or hunger. Because those in need in those areas have no input or output value to the market relative to the cost of their need. The market is simply another form of war (and the likely cause of almost any actual physical war). It is a predatory, competitive battle of control of resources. People who fall outside a particular market are dead to it, literally in many cases. The markets would be fine, healthier in fact, with mass starvation and death of the extraneous.

You're begging the question here. On what grounds are the actual issues we are discussing external to the market's inputs and outputs? Actually, it's not even clear to me what the issues you are discussing are.

Presumably, we agree that that building more housing will help with rent prices. So is the argument you're making that even with more housing, gentrification will not stop in the Bay Area? Because if that's the argument, I'm not sure it will either. But what I can say is that if the working class population can't afford to live in SF, then by definition the entire area by sheer profit motive will accommodate those who do live there and can afford to consume, i.e. tech workers.

In other words, I am not asking you to agree that capitalism is the solution, but I am asking you to agree that capitalism was the problem to begin with. Make it so that working class people can afford to live in SF or Palo Alto, and then you can address issues of tech-specific gentrification.
_________________
https://j.gifs.com/Rnqnbk.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 82605
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:16 pm    Post subject:

tox wrote:
Omar Little wrote:

The problem with thinking that there's a market based solution (if only regulators would get out of the way is that the market is not a construct that considers, much less solves, the issues of factors external to the market's inputs or outputs. This is why there will never be a market solution to housing, or comprehensive medical care, or hunger. Because those in need in those areas have no input or output value to the market relative to the cost of their need. The market is simply another form of war (and the likely cause of almost any actual physical war). It is a predatory, competitive battle of control of resources. People who fall outside a particular market are dead to it, literally in many cases. The markets would be fine, healthier in fact, with mass starvation and death of the extraneous.

You're begging the question here. On what grounds are the actual issues we are discussing external to the market's inputs and outputs? Actually, it's not even clear to me what the issues you are discussing are.

Presumably, we agree that that building more housing will help with rent prices. So is the argument you're making that even with more housing, gentrification will not stop in the Bay Area? Because if that's the argument, I'm not sure it will either. But what I can say is that if the working class population can't afford to live in SF, then by definition the entire area by sheer profit motive will accommodate those who do live there and can afford to consume, i.e. tech workers.

In other words, I am not asking you to agree that capitalism is the solution, but I am asking you to agree that capitalism was the problem to begin with. Make it so that working class people can afford to live in SF or Palo Alto, and then you can address issues of tech-specific gentrification.


It’s not begging the question to posit that a market is not going to solve an issue that isn’t an actual issue to the market. Working class people being driven out of a market by higher paying clientele is not a market negative. It has no deleterious effect on the market. Which is why it won’t be solved by relaxing building regulation, which in the market would just expand higher end offerings. The only way you’re going to get affordable housing into that market is to artificially (that is, by forces other than market) insert it.
_________________
Tolerance is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 13703

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:00 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
tox wrote:
Omar Little wrote:

The problem with thinking that there's a market based solution (if only regulators would get out of the way is that the market is not a construct that considers, much less solves, the issues of factors external to the market's inputs or outputs. This is why there will never be a market solution to housing, or comprehensive medical care, or hunger. Because those in need in those areas have no input or output value to the market relative to the cost of their need. The market is simply another form of war (and the likely cause of almost any actual physical war). It is a predatory, competitive battle of control of resources. People who fall outside a particular market are dead to it, literally in many cases. The markets would be fine, healthier in fact, with mass starvation and death of the extraneous.

You're begging the question here. On what grounds are the actual issues we are discussing external to the market's inputs and outputs? Actually, it's not even clear to me what the issues you are discussing are.

Presumably, we agree that that building more housing will help with rent prices. So is the argument you're making that even with more housing, gentrification will not stop in the Bay Area? Because if that's the argument, I'm not sure it will either. But what I can say is that if the working class population can't afford to live in SF, then by definition the entire area by sheer profit motive will accommodate those who do live there and can afford to consume, i.e. tech workers.

In other words, I am not asking you to agree that capitalism is the solution, but I am asking you to agree that capitalism was the problem to begin with. Make it so that working class people can afford to live in SF or Palo Alto, and then you can address issues of tech-specific gentrification.


It’s not begging the question to posit that a market is not going to solve an issue that isn’t an actual issue to the market. Working class people being driven out of a market by higher paying clientele is not a market negative. It has no deleterious effect on the market. Which is why it won’t be solved by relaxing building regulation, which in the market would just expand higher end offerings. The only way you’re going to get affordable housing into that market is to artificially (that is, by forces other than market) insert it.

It was begging the question when you made the claim with nothing backing it up besides the premise of the argument.

Anyway, to the meat of your argument: I disagree, to an extent. If you fix some of the zoning regulations (vertical limits, prohibiting mixed use housing, parking lot regulations) you can make housing beyond high end apartments profitable. That said, I also support public housing efforts to explicitly create low income housing. There are ways to encourage housing development aimed for the working class.

If it's not clear, I don't think the solution is deregulation. I think the solution is changing zoning regulations to favor denser areas. These extra units in dense areas will be able to accommodate working class people too, but the economics only make sense with different zoning regulations.
_________________
https://j.gifs.com/Rnqnbk.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 82605
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:01 pm    Post subject:

I guess I have a different definition of begging the question. Anyway, you still aren’t getting the idea I’m actually positing, that the market doesn’t need or want affordable housing in San Francisco. The market is actually driving affordable housing out in favor of more lucrative opportunities, and will continue to do so even if you change density zoning. There’s no market need for affordable housing. That’s a social, societal issue that runs counter to the market.
_________________
Tolerance is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 13703

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:53 pm    Post subject:

The market can't sustain affordable housing in San Francisco because land is simply too valuable given the demand to live in SF. So yes, any new development right now is going to be expensive unless it is government subsidized. Which is why you want apartments on the 2nd floor of laundromats (mixed-use housing). Which is why you want skyscrapers with mediocre amenities, which can actually be profitable if it is tall enough.

And sure, maybe luxury high rises would be more profitable (and still cater towards the rich). But even so, that is the perfect argument for a sort of regulation about the type of housing that should be built (e.g. designating certain areas to have affordable high rises). So long as it is profitable (even if it is less profitable than disallowed luxury high rises) the market will do what it does.

I'd say the stronger argument against my claim is issues with supply/demand.
Either:
i) Any new housing, affordable or otherwise, will be taken by tech workers. I find this unlikely because most tech workers who want to live in SF do so anyway because they can afford it. The schools, urban environment, and commute to SV tend to be a bigger deterrent than prices.
ii) New housing will lower rent, making it easier for start up tech companies in SF to attract talent. These companies' growth requires new employees who swallow the newly constructed housing. This makes sense but is a big assumption to make.

If neither of these conditions applies, then constructing new housing with sensible regulation will improve things drastically. It's not a slam dunk, but it's certainly not the bogeyman you are making it out to be.
_________________
https://j.gifs.com/Rnqnbk.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Mike@LG
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 59755
Location: Orange County, CA

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:01 am    Post subject:

slavavov wrote:
tox wrote:
slavavov wrote:

My issue is not so much with consumerism, but with how the tech industry has gobbled up what used to be (somewhat) affordable housing and priced out of the reach of anyone not in that industry. Obviously they deserve the big money they're making, and there's nothing wrong with having these yuppie neighborhoods per se. These neighborhoods are a problem because they've forced out the working class people who used to live there, but they're also a symptom of the real problem, which, like you said, is the flaws of our capitalistic system and the lack of controls to make sure it doesn't devour anyone who isn't rich or well off.

I grew up in Santa Monica in a borderline upper-middle class neighborhood, so while I don't like blind and conspicuous consumerism that people engage in only as a sort of symbol of their socioeconomic class, I grew up around it so I know it's not evil and that there's a place for it. When I drink beer, I admit I do prefer Bud Lite because I'm just trying to get drunk with my friends while saving money, but if that hipster in SF wants a $10 handcrafted beer, I have no problem with that.

My beef with that industry also has to do with the attitude some of them had that was described in those articles. Some of these people tend to be socially awkward and lacking empathy, and when they become rich these qualities become obvious to the public. Money doesn't corrupt people, it makes you more of who you are.

I think some neighborhoods need to be kept off limits to these nouveau riche people so that the working class and poor can also have their own neighborhoods where they can raise their kids and live in peace without worrying about whether their new landlord will kick them out because their rent just increased 50%.

And in the interest of fairness, I do want to emphasize that there are some great things the tech industry is doing, such as philanthropy and giving their employees major perks, plus of course the technology itself.

I just think that sometimes when you solve problems, new problems may be created at the same time.

I hear you, I do. Like I said, I agree Big Tech is sort of the proximate cause to a lot of issues in the Bay Area. It has brought a lot more people into the area and then priced out the lower-working class. But that simply requires more housing to be built, go to Tokyo which is equally earthquake prone and you'll see mega skyscrapers. In SF, try to build a skyscraper and you end up with people on Quora complaining about the beautiful skyline being ruined (seriously? who cares, you don't live on the ocean!). And honestly SF is fairly dense as is, let's talk about the suburban wasteland that is San Jose all the way up to SF on the peninsula and Berkeley in the East Bay.

Anyway, the point is that yes I agree people are being priced out, and 24 is probably right that simply building new housing doesn't solve all the issues of gentrification. But it's a start, and it drives me crazy when people scapegoat Big Tech precisely because then it's easy for NIMBYs to continue to shift blame, and that stops meaningful work from getting done.

(I have no opinion on whether rich tech people are worse than regular rich people, but I guess well off people tend to be unempathetic in general. I'd be surprised if the average tech worker weren't more empathetic than the average banker though.)

I agree that high rise residential skyscrapers may be the only solution. NYC is even more dense than SF and they've had those old school high rise apt buildings with those stoops that are a ubiquitous part of NYC's culture. I think overpopulation is maybe our biggest societal issue, and since it would be un-American to put a limit on how many kids you can have (like in China), we'll simply have to figure out how to accommodate more people with less space.


Birth rate in the U.S. is already dropping, don't worry.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.
Troy Brown, Kevin Huerter, Chandler Hutchison, De'Anthony Melton, Jerome Robinson, Aaron Holiday, Bruce Brown, Donte Divincenzo, Josh Okogie
Jarred Vanderbilt, Landry Shamet, Alize Johnson
@Lakersoutsiders
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LakersRGolden
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 6499
Location: Lake Forest

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:25 am    Post subject:

Mike@LG wrote:
slavavov wrote:
tox wrote:
slavavov wrote:

My issue is not so much with consumerism, but with how the tech industry has gobbled up what used to be (somewhat) affordable housing and priced out of the reach of anyone not in that industry. Obviously they deserve the big money they're making, and there's nothing wrong with having these yuppie neighborhoods per se. These neighborhoods are a problem because they've forced out the working class people who used to live there, but they're also a symptom of the real problem, which, like you said, is the flaws of our capitalistic system and the lack of controls to make sure it doesn't devour anyone who isn't rich or well off.

I grew up in Santa Monica in a borderline upper-middle class neighborhood, so while I don't like blind and conspicuous consumerism that people engage in only as a sort of symbol of their socioeconomic class, I grew up around it so I know it's not evil and that there's a place for it. When I drink beer, I admit I do prefer Bud Lite because I'm just trying to get drunk with my friends while saving money, but if that hipster in SF wants a $10 handcrafted beer, I have no problem with that.

My beef with that industry also has to do with the attitude some of them had that was described in those articles. Some of these people tend to be socially awkward and lacking empathy, and when they become rich these qualities become obvious to the public. Money doesn't corrupt people, it makes you more of who you are.

I think some neighborhoods need to be kept off limits to these nouveau riche people so that the working class and poor can also have their own neighborhoods where they can raise their kids and live in peace without worrying about whether their new landlord will kick them out because their rent just increased 50%.

And in the interest of fairness, I do want to emphasize that there are some great things the tech industry is doing, such as philanthropy and giving their employees major perks, plus of course the technology itself.

I just think that sometimes when you solve problems, new problems may be created at the same time.

I hear you, I do. Like I said, I agree Big Tech is sort of the proximate cause to a lot of issues in the Bay Area. It has brought a lot more people into the area and then priced out the lower-working class. But that simply requires more housing to be built, go to Tokyo which is equally earthquake prone and you'll see mega skyscrapers. In SF, try to build a skyscraper and you end up with people on Quora complaining about the beautiful skyline being ruined (seriously? who cares, you don't live on the ocean!). And honestly SF is fairly dense as is, let's talk about the suburban wasteland that is San Jose all the way up to SF on the peninsula and Berkeley in the East Bay.

Anyway, the point is that yes I agree people are being priced out, and 24 is probably right that simply building new housing doesn't solve all the issues of gentrification. But it's a start, and it drives me crazy when people scapegoat Big Tech precisely because then it's easy for NIMBYs to continue to shift blame, and that stops meaningful work from getting done.

(I have no opinion on whether rich tech people are worse than regular rich people, but I guess well off people tend to be unempathetic in general. I'd be surprised if the average tech worker weren't more empathetic than the average banker though.)

I agree that high rise residential skyscrapers may be the only solution. NYC is even more dense than SF and they've had those old school high rise apt buildings with those stoops that are a ubiquitous part of NYC's culture. I think overpopulation is maybe our biggest societal issue, and since it would be un-American to put a limit on how many kids you can have (like in China), we'll simply have to figure out how to accommodate more people with less space.


Birth rate in the U.S. is already dropping, don't worry.


Unfortunately, anywhere that isn't a Major city is becoming a ghost town with just a handful of Big Farm employees running the robot tractors around the fields.

There's plenty of land but precious little job resources outside of cities. So everyone migrates cityward.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
audioaxes
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 9644

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:35 pm    Post subject:

San Diego for me...
clean, safe, not crazy populated, great weather, traffic is relatively tame
_________________
anti-tank.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Conker
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 12998
Location: MDC

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:31 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
Conker wrote:
None, to be honest.


Says the guy who’s never been to California

You sure love paying a lot of taxes.
_________________
(❍ᴥ❍ʋ) ʕʘᴥʘʔ (⌐ ͡■ ͜ʖ ͡■) (┛◉Д◉)┛( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ༼;´༎ຶ ۝ ༎ຶ༽
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Huey Lewis & The News
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Posts: 3779
Location: So what's the uh...topic of discussion?

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:17 pm    Post subject:

Conker wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
Conker wrote:
None, to be honest.


Says the guy who’s never been to California

You sure love paying a lot of taxes.


your legal defense, orange jumpsuit, and meals didn't pay for themselves
_________________
"All wars are civil wars, because all men are brothers."
http://forums.lakersground.net/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=13018
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Conker
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 12998
Location: MDC

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:58 am    Post subject:

Huey Lewis & The News wrote:
Conker wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
Conker wrote:
None, to be honest.


Says the guy who’s never been to California

You sure love paying a lot of taxes.


your legal defense, orange jumpsuit, and meals didn't pay for themselves

Paid a private lawyer for $2400 for that first case. Slick tongue he had.

"They don't got (bleep) on you!" He said. "Don't worry about this (bleep). Me and the DA... We're like this." Crossing two fingers in one hand. Sure enough, charges dropped. Since then, I've learn about the legal process nonsense.

Rather deal with what you typed in than those ridiculous tax rates that California. (bleep) that bullshot. Never understood what's so great about California where you can get the same crap from anywhere.
_________________
(❍ᴥ❍ʋ) ʕʘᴥʘʔ (⌐ ͡■ ͜ʖ ͡■) (┛◉Д◉)┛( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ༼;´༎ຶ ۝ ༎ຶ༽
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kcxiv
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 25 Nov 2005
Posts: 3869

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:25 am    Post subject:

Conker wrote:
Huey Lewis & The News wrote:
Conker wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
Conker wrote:
None, to be honest.


Says the guy who’s never been to California

You sure love paying a lot of taxes.


your legal defense, orange jumpsuit, and meals didn't pay for themselves

Paid a private lawyer for $2400 for that first case. Slick tongue he had.

"They don't got (bleep) on you!" He said. "Don't worry about this (bleep). Me and the DA... We're like this." Crossing two fingers in one hand. Sure enough, charges dropped. Since then, I've learn about the legal process nonsense.

Rather deal with what you typed in than those ridiculous tax rates that California. (bleep) that bullshot. Never understood what's so great about California where you can get the same crap from anywhere.


It has pretty much everything with great weather. Not much that it doesnt have to offer! Hell, im 4-5 hours from L.A and 2 hours from the Bay. I live 20 min from Yosemite. I love where i live.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Reply with quote
Surfitall
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 12 Feb 2002
Posts: 2541
Location: Newport Coast

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:46 am    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
Surfitall wrote:

I will admit though that I’ve found South Orange County to be perfect for me. The bubble of Newport, HB, and Laguna (and some of Irvine too) is as close as you can get to living in Hawaii without living in Hawaii. It’s more beachy than LA...I can wear my flip flops almost anywhere.

The other place in California that intrigues me is Big Sur. Not a city in any way but I like the vibe and would kind of like to retire there with an old pickup truck, the beauty of the terrain, and my wife...but she wants to retire in Europe. What to do. First world problems.


The OC is like Hawaii in just about zero ways other than mild weather. It’s maybe the affluent vapid white idea of Hawaii.


Sounds like you’ve had some negative experiences in Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and/or Laguna Beach?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
CandyCanes
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 Dec 2007
Posts: 28486
Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Washington, DC

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 5:00 am    Post subject:

Surfitall wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
Surfitall wrote:

I will admit though that I’ve found South Orange County to be perfect for me. The bubble of Newport, HB, and Laguna (and some of Irvine too) is as close as you can get to living in Hawaii without living in Hawaii. It’s more beachy than LA...I can wear my flip flops almost anywhere.

The other place in California that intrigues me is Big Sur. Not a city in any way but I like the vibe and would kind of like to retire there with an old pickup truck, the beauty of the terrain, and my wife...but she wants to retire in Europe. What to do. First world problems.


The OC is like Hawaii in just about zero ways other than mild weather. It’s maybe the affluent vapid white idea of Hawaii.


Sounds like you’ve had some negative experiences in Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and/or Laguna Beach?


I find Newport Beach pretty boring other than the ocean and Fashion Island. (And what do people really do at Fashion Island anyway?) It's like a retirement community.
_________________
Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZrbEjppnd4
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Surfitall
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 12 Feb 2002
Posts: 2541
Location: Newport Coast

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:42 am    Post subject:

CandyCanes wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
Surfitall wrote:

I will admit though that I’ve found South Orange County to be perfect for me. The bubble of Newport, HB, and Laguna (and some of Irvine too) is as close as you can get to living in Hawaii without living in Hawaii. It’s more beachy than LA...I can wear my flip flops almost anywhere.

The other place in California that intrigues me is Big Sur. Not a city in any way but I like the vibe and would kind of like to retire there with an old pickup truck, the beauty of the terrain, and my wife...but she wants to retire in Europe. What to do. First world problems.


The OC is like Hawaii in just about zero ways other than mild weather. It’s maybe the affluent vapid white idea of Hawaii.


Sounds like you’ve had some negative experiences in Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and/or Laguna Beach?


I find Newport Beach pretty boring other than the ocean and Fashion Island. (And what do people really do at Fashion Island anyway?) It's like a retirement community.


Like most parts of Southern California, you kind of need to know where to go, but it’s definitely for an older crowd. Spending the morning having breakfast at the beachcomber...entering through the storm drain (yes, really)...awesome.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
governator
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 9200

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:52 am    Post subject:

Might hit up SD for xmas/new year family trip... saw cambodian pho on facebook (?with entrails or fermented something?), anybody know where to get one? Long Beach?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB