
Single-family housing in the Bay Area linked to more racially segregated cities - apsec112
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/20/single-family-housing-in-the-bay-area-linked-to-more-racially-segregated-cities-report/
======
ericmcer
I live in a fairly low income area of the bay area, and when I drive into the
Berkeley hills, Marin, or Piedmont/rich Oakland the density of Black Lives
Matter signs in front of houses increases. Thats anecdotal evidence obviously,
but there is something funny about our status quo when people live in a $2m
home on a 1/2 acre of extremely sought after real estate while loudly
advertising their desire for more equality.

It is an interesting time watching the intersection of all these disparate
ideals trying to coalesce into a coherent worldview and lifestyle in everyones
minds.

~~~
jeffbee
There recently was a kerfuffle in Berkeley when Robert Reich, ex-Secretary of
Laber, UC Berkeley professor, and author of "The System: Who Rigged It, How We
Fix It" was found to have written a letter to the city in opposition of a
small apartment building that is proposed to replace an empty detached house
on the block where he lives in his 2-million-dollar house. There is often a
gap between the positions taken in print, and the actions taken in practice.

~~~
reducesuffering
Which, to my knowledge, he hasn't addressed or offered any rebuttal.

------
boreas
Personally, it strikes me as profoundly illiberal that we allow and expect
from local governments such complete control over private use of private
property.

It is probably one of the most important policy issues from an economic/social
perspective, and yet it doesn't have a clear valence in today's binary,
identitarian political discourse. I see people from all backgrounds and
affiliations arguing for/against upzoning/housing density.

~~~
abakker
I tend to agree that it is problematic to embed so much power into local
governments. They are ill equipped to handled the research required to make
those choices meaningfully. The smaller and poorer the towns, the less
equipped they are to be informed.

There is a kind of loop that happens in this debate, though.

1\. we want progress, 2\. progress requires money, 3\. money requires growth
4\. growth requires change 5\. change is not always progress...

Whether or not you agree with the premise of any items on that loop, it seems
to happen that the loop is the refrains of all small governments (and maybe
large ones?) who need to fund all of their actions out of current and future
receivables. Without changes that increase property value (and therefore
taxes), many small governments in the US have few levers for progress. If they
levy higher taxes in other forms, it puts a regressive burden on their poorest
members, if they do nothing then they can't be progressive.

I tend to think of the shortcomings as a matter of debt, mostly. Debt is the
ultimate anti-progressive force, since it sticks around long after mistakes
have been made. many municipalities have increased levels of debt to keep up
with the levels of progress they require, but the debts need to be funded by
future revenues, which means growth in future revenues.

An uncomfortable conclusion of this is that even if our smaller governments
acted with the best of intent, They will be left paying for their mistakes for
many years to come, and that those financial commitments to projects which did
not pay off in hindsight may cripple their ability to make correct choices
now.

edit: source on State and Local Debt:
[https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11502](https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11502)

~~~
boreas
I would hope that increasing density doesn't require much upfront investment.
It's definitely true that density creates more strain on public goods like
roads that are disproportionately funded by yesterday's taxpayers. I guess
that is a pretty reasonable externality to incorporate into permitting fees.

~~~
abakker
It’s the load on parking, sewer, electric, gas lines, school districts,
hospitals, etc. it all adds up, and if you recover all the costs from the
permitting, then nobody will build. It is quite complicated.

------
renewiltord
Well, the Bay Area has very conservative politics, so this is not a surprise.
The rhetoric here is all around preservation and the lost golden age and all
that stuff - standard conservative fare.

There's a veneer of supporting progressive issues but it's a veneer. I imagine
that most people would have high RWAS scores as well.

------
hardtke
Burlingame, one of the wealthiest cities in the Bay Area, has a decent mix of
multifamily and single family housing. The last time I checked, it was about
50/50 renters owners. Given the exorbitant prices to buy a house there, the
rents are somewhat reasonable (quite a bit cheaper than SF, starting at about
$1800 for a one bedroom). In spite of this, it still is very racially
homogenous (very few African Americans or Latinos). Additionally, the schools
tend to be mostly homeowner's children -- very few families rent there in
order to give their children access into the top ranked public schools. Based
on the real world example of Burlingame, it's not clear that changing the
zoning rules will lead to the outcomes that the study authors hope for.

------
some-guy
Outline version for those with browsers that won't render the page properly
without massive amounts of popups:
[https://outline.com/3Ezn4C](https://outline.com/3Ezn4C)

------
vanusa
Unflag please - this post is perfectly consistent with site guidelines.

------
isx726552
> Wright’s opposition to denser housing in his San Jose neighborhood has made
> him bedfellows with one rather uncomfortable partner for the self-described
> liberal: President Donald Trump, who has decried efforts led by Wiener and
> others to build “low income housing” in suburban communities. “It’s an
> absolute nightmare for me to say anything that is so close to what Trump has
> been saying about the invasion of the suburbs,” Wright said. “There’s a very
> embarrassing and disturbing parallel.”

And yet he is also quoted as saying “I don’t know what the answer is.” This
just reflects the same issue I’ve seen since moving to the Bay Area 20 years
ago: people’s value and pride in their “diverse” geographical area being at
odds with their desire for ever-higher property values and NIMBYism. It’s
pretty clear which one usually wins, even if folks can scarcely bring
themselves to admit it.

~~~
evan_
it's pretty obvious that he DOES know what the answer is, he just doesn't like
it...

------
jrnichols
unsure why this is flagged, Bay Area housing issues directly affect some major
technology companies as we know them.

The lack of affordable housing for many "minority" communities is a huge
barrier to technology jobs, among many other things.

Bay Area housing prices are still out of control, though. I worry that it's
going to continue to push ethnic communities right out of the area forever.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
> Wright’s opposition to denser housing in his San Jose neighborhood has made
> him bedfellows with one rather uncomfortable partner for the self-described
> liberal: President Donald Trump, who has decried efforts led by Wiener and
> others to build “low income housing” in suburban communities. “It’s an
> absolute nightmare for me to say anything that is so close to what Trump has
> been saying about the invasion of the suburbs,” Wright said. “There’s a very
> embarrassing and disturbing parallel.”

People are always very woke and liberal until it affects their privilege or
their pocketbooks. Which is a huge problem. You get great responses when you
take polls about whether racial equality and justice is important to people
and that something should be done. But, if you try to do any actual, concrete
policy, the polling rapidly drops.

~~~
darawk
Everyone is pretty sure that "rich people" should pay for everything, and that
"rich" is defined as anyone that has 10x more wealth than I do. Whether you're
making 20k or making 200k, everyone thinks that real wealth is one order of
magnitude away.

~~~
isx726552
It’s not all relative, there are levels of wealth which are beyond normal
conception, even in absolute terms. There are people who clearly have more
money than they could reasonably spend in a lifetime (billionaires in
particular), and then there are people who have an expensive house but not
much else to speak of.

