
Stripe to donate $1M to California Yimby - dcgudeman
https://nytimes.com/2018/05/03/us/california-today-stripe-yimby-housing.html
======
pc
Stripe cofounder here.

This is an issue that I know a lot of HN readers care about and I'd encourage
anyone interested to get involved. (Feel free to reach out to CA YIMBY, your
local representatives, or any of the other organizations doing good work in
the field.)

Bad housing policy is one of the biggest impediments to overall economic
growth[1] and to individual economic opportunity[2][3] in the US. Our current
restrictive policies disproportionately hurt poorer, younger, and (frequently)
non-white[4] people. I really hope we can change them.

[1] [https://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/chang-
tai.hsieh/research/gr...](https://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/chang-
tai.hsieh/research/growth.pdf)

[2]
[https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/83656/...](https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/83656/2000907-strategies-
for-increasing-housing-supply-in-high-cost-cities-dc-case-study_1.pdf)

[3] From the Obama administration:
[https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images...](https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/Housing_Development_Toolkit%20f.2.pdf)

[4] [https://www.amazon.com/Color-Law-Forgotten-Government-
Segreg...](https://www.amazon.com/Color-Law-Forgotten-Government-
Segregated/dp/1631492853)

~~~
abalone
_> Our current restrictive policies disproportionately hurt poorer, younger,
and (frequently) non-white[4] people._

There is massive opposition within the poorer, non-white bay area community to
the political group that Stripe is funding here. CA YIMBY [EDIT: correction,
should read YIMBY Action] literally shouted down minority activists who were
opposed to a housing bill at a recent protest. The LA Times just published a
good overview of this issue yesterday. The title: "A major California housing
bill failed after opposition from the low-income residents it aimed to help.
Here's how it went wrong"[1]

Money quote: "'The YIMBY movement has a white privilege problem,' said Anya
Lawler, a lobbyist with the Western Center on Law & Poverty, a legal advocacy
group and adversary of SB 827. 'I don't think they recognize it. They don't
understand poverty. They don't understand what that's like, who our clients
really are and what their lived experience is.'"

Concessions to protect low-income residents were added to the failed bill only
_after_ substantial protest from the community. Let's hope next time around,
instead of just claiming to act on behalf on poorer and non-white people, they
actually try listening to them.

[1] [http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-housing-bill-
failu...](http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-housing-bill-failure-
equity-groups-20180502-story.html)

~~~
pc
> _There is massive opposition within the poorer, non-white bay area community
> to the political group that Stripe is funding here. CA YIMBY literally
> shouted down minority activists who were opposed to a housing bill at a
> recent protest._

While no group is homogeneous in beliefs, polling very clearly shows that
minority groups strongly support increased housing construction. (As does an
overall majority of Californians.) On the micro level, groups like The 200
(community leaders of color) and experts like Richard Rothstein (author of
Color of Law) have endorsed CA YIMBY's pro-housing policy work. See more at
[https://cayimby.org/endorsement/fair-housing-
advocates/](https://cayimby.org/endorsement/fair-housing-advocates/).

CA YIMBY was not involved in the protest you mention. I think you're confusing
them with other groups.

~~~
abalone
I believe you are misrepresenting that letter when you say it "endorsed CA
YIMBY's work." To quote it,

"We note that some affordable housing and tenants' rights organizations have
expressed concerns over SB 827. Recent amendments designed to safeguard local
inclusionary zoning ordinances, protect local residents from displacement
through a statutory 'right to remain' guarantee, and prohibit demolition of
rent-controlled housing, which we applaud, helps to address some of these
concerns."

None of these amendments would have happened without protest from low-income
and minority housing advocates against CA YIMBY's work. The letter "applauds"
these changes and even supports "additional legislation to expand inclusionary
zoning." It merely concludes that "the perfect must not be the enemy of the
good" and recommends a compromise.

This is far from an endorsement of CA YIMBY's work. In fact it reads as an
endorsement of the opposition and resulting amendments.

 _> While no group is homogeneous in beliefs, polling very clearly shows that
minority groups strongly support increased housing construction._

The minority groups who opposed SB 827 _support_ increased housing
construction -- just with better protections against displacement than what CA
YIMBY has been pushing. To suggest otherwise is a false dichotomy.

Thank you for the correction on which YIMBY group shouted down the minority
housing activists.

~~~
pcwalton
> The minority groups who opposed SB 827 support increased housing
> construction -- just with better protections against displacement than what
> CA YIMBY has been pushing. To suggest otherwise is a false dichotomy.

No, they don't. Organizations like SFTU do not support construction of any
market-rate housing.

~~~
abalone
You conflated housing construction with market-rate housing. And it’s not
true. SFTU simply notes that for every market rate unit you need 0.25 BMR
units simply to accommodate the resulting job creation (retail, restaurant,
public service, etc.) That’s just to keep things where they are, which is
already a huge staffing crisis for the service industry in SF. More like 0.5
BMR to make an appreciable impact.[1]

This is something we all should care about if we’re not just here to make a
quick buck. Long term we need teachers and cooks and waiters and artists to
keep SF a desirable place to live.

As PG himself said, “These independent restaurants and cafes are not just
feeding people. They're making there be a there here.”[2]

[1] [https://www.sftu.org/2018/04/market-rate-housing-makes-
crisi...](https://www.sftu.org/2018/04/market-rate-housing-makes-crisis-
worse/)

[2] [http://www.paulgraham.com/pgh.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/pgh.html)

~~~
pcwalton
No economist agrees with Tim Redmond, who is a millionaire homeowner on the
westside who unfortunately is very good at couching his own financial and
personal interests in the veneer of progressive language in order to co-opt
groups like SFTU into working against their constituents' long-term self-
interest.

High-end condos don't generate jobs. They provide housing for the jobs that
are already here and the new ones that are being created every day.

Raising the inclusionary zoning percentage to 50% will simply make it
financially infeasible to construct housing. The City's own study confirms
this. Tim knows this too, and that is why he advocates for it.

~~~
abalone
_> High-end condos don't generate jobs. They provide housing for the jobs that
are already here and the new ones that are being created every day._

You completely missed the point. You are simply not taking into account the
service industry jobs that arise to serve the new "high-end condo" residents.
Baristas and teachers need BMR housing.

 _> a millionaire... who unfortunately is very good at couching his own
financial and personal interests in the veneer of progressive language in
order to co-opt groups... into working against their constituents' long-term
self-interest._

Exactly the same criticism could be made of tech-millionare-backed, largely
white YIMBY groups. The difference is minority and low-income housing
activists are broadly opposed to YIMBY policies. Your only explanation is that
they are victims of a rich white puppetmaster.

You should try listening to them better. You completely misrepresented their
position earlier; even those that supported the passage of SB 827 did so after
substantial amendments that arose from protesting the YIMBY-backed original
bill.

~~~
pcwalton
> You completely missed the point. You are simply not taking into account the
> service industry jobs that arise to serve the new "high-end condo"
> residents. Baristas and teachers need BMR housing.

Tim's article is yet another misuse of the Residential Nexus Analysis. For
more info as to how that paper is abused:

[https://blog.yonathan.org/posts/2017-04-stop-quoting-the-
res...](https://blog.yonathan.org/posts/2017-04-stop-quoting-the-residential-
nexus-analysis.html)

[https://www.nahb.org/en/research/nahb-priorities/zoning-
and-...](https://www.nahb.org/en/research/nahb-priorities/zoning-and-land-
use/~/media/Sites/NAHB/SupportingFiles/3/CAI/CAIZOrdinances_20120403125519.ashx?la=en&hash=08EC715574C4736190A27238D7830E0153C49D3D)
(an academic analysis)

Key point: "The Residential Nexus Analysis gets around all this by assuming
that a new development of 100 units does not compete against existing housing
but somehow attracts new residents who would not otherwise have looked for
existing housing. At the same time, it assumes that the new housing units
receive their price from the market. A more reasonable model would make the
cost of housing endogenous by considering the new development a part of San
Francisco’s housing stock which is desirable by existing residents."

In fact, I'm a walking example of this. I'm moving out of a rent controlled
apartment in SF into a new condo in SF, freeing up my old relatively-
affordable unit. If NIMBYs had their way, then I'd continue to be living there
instead of someone who really needs that studio apartment.

Again: There is _no debate_ among economists about whether California needs to
build more market rate housing. The only debates are in the political sphere.
This is an open and shut case.

> Exactly the same criticism could be made of tech-millionare-backed, largely
> white YIMBY groups.

YIMBY groups are diverse and reflect the diversity of the Bay Area, with LGBT
especially well-represented. Their opponents like to erase representation of
minorities to score political points, which is extremely disrespectful. For
example, Gay Shame claims that you can't be "queer" unless you agree with
their anti-development politics, which is at best bullying and at worst
homophobic.

Notice I wasn't referring to anyone other than Tim Redmond. I'm well aware
that NIMBY groups are also diverse.

> The difference is minority and low-income housing activists are broadly
> opposed to YIMBY policies. Your only explanation is that they are victims of
> a rich white puppetmaster.

 _Some_ minority and low-income housing activists are opposed to development.
Others, such as nonprofit developers, supported SB 827.

It is not a controversial statement among anyone other than Bay Area activists
that the lines cross against development in a bizarre way unique to San
Francisco. It is not a controversial statement among economists that
artificially restricting the supply of housing hurts the most vulnerable. From
listening to SF "progressives" talk, you'd think that economists weren't
_completely united in opposition to rent control_ , which, of course, they are
(and I'm not opposed to smart rent control, by the way).

> You should try listening to them better.

I have listened. I understand the concerns about gentrification and
displacement. That doesn't change the fact that tenants' activists are wrong
about what causes it.

~~~
abalone
Your arguments are extremely disingenuous. You know that rent-controlled units
reset to market when vacated. A barista or a teacher is not going to move into
your studio. It's probably going to go to another tech worker.

You dismiss Tim Redmond's analysis based on his vested "millionaire" homeowner
interest. Yet you cite an "academic" analysis paid for by the California
Homebuilding Foundation. Completely hypocritical.

You attempt to paint the YIMBY groups as diverse and representative of low-
income minority groups by citing only their LGBT representation. This
blatantly disregards Latinx, AA and other minority groups that are
disproportionately affected by the housing crisis.

You mischaracterize BMR as "rent control," then simplistically argue against
that straw man. But economists do in fact argue that SF affordable housing
developer fees can "improve housing affordability for low- and middle-income
households, despite some loss of market-rate housing construction" because
"prices are less important than land use controls in explaining whether a
parcel will develop new housing."[1] And even economists who argue against the
downsides of rent control recognize it has "benefits" and argue for other
forms of government "protection against rent increases."[2]

[1]
[http://sfcontroller.org/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Docum...](http://sfcontroller.org/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Documents/7131-151274_economic_impact_final.pdf)

[2] [https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/rent-controls-
winners-...](https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/rent-controls-winners-
losers)

~~~
pcwalton
> You know that rent-controlled units reset to market when vacated. A barista
> or a teacher is not going to move into your studio. It's probably going to
> go to another tech worker.

It's sure a lot more affordable than the "luxury condos" everyone complains
about. And, besides, the reason why it's likely to go to another tech worker
is _that there isn 't enough housing_. If the city were to cap the rent at
$1,000 (post-Costa-Hawkins-repeal), then the units would _still_ go to tech
workers, because if there are many applicants landlords will nearly always
rent to the richest.

> You dismiss Tim Redmond's analysis based on his vested "millionaire"
> homeowner interest. Yet you cite an "academic" analysis paid for by the
> California Homebuilding Foundation. Completely hypocritical.

I dismiss Tim Redmond's "analysis" because _it 's wrong_ and is based on
talking points that have been debunked, as I explained. Tim has a history of
making specious arguments, always in favor of NIMBYism. For example, Tim made
a ludicrous claim a while back that most "luxury condos" are vacant, based on
classifying of any listing of a homeowner with a different address as "vacant"
(which excludes all rentals!)

The paper I described _is_ academic, because it's written by an academic. Tim
is not one.

> You attempt to paint the YIMBY groups as diverse and representative of low-
> income minority groups by citing only their LGBT representation.

Because it would be weird to namedrop people I don't know well in order to win
an an argument on a message board that YIMBY groups are diverse. You are
welcome to do your own research to confirm that there are plenty of ethnic
minorities in YIMBY groups.

> You mischaracterize BMR as "rent control,"

I never said BMR/inclusionary zoning is rent control. Nor do I disagree with
rent control, if implemented properly (see below)!

The problem with high inclusionary zoning percentages is that if they become
too high developers won't construct housing at all. Developments have to
pencil out, unless we fund them at public expense. (I want to do that as well,
but that will be very hard in the current political environment, so in the
meantime we have to pursue realistic policies.) Exclusionary suburbs know
this—they create unrealistically high IZ requirements in order to prevent new
housing from being built.

> And even economists who argue against the downsides of rent control
> recognize it has "benefits" and argue for other forms of government
> "protection against rent increases."

It's simply a fact that economists disagree with rent control.
[https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-01-18/yup-
rent-...](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-01-18/yup-rent-control-
does-more-harm-than-good)

Government protection against rent increases is a good idea, as long as it's
means-tested—tech workers like me shouldn't stand to benefit from it. For
example, a progressive tax credit, as suggested in that paper, would be a
great idea that would protect vulnerable renters.

~~~
abalone
_> And, besides, the reason why [my studio is] likely to go to another tech
worker is that there isn't enough housing._

Thank you for conceding that your studio is going to go to another tech
worker. There goes the (non-academic) argument you just presented against
Residential Nexus Analysis. The point stands that baristas and teachers need
BMR housing.

 _> Because it would be weird to namedrop people I don't know well in order to
win an an argument on a message board that YIMBY groups are diverse. You are
welcome to do your own research to confirm that there are plenty of ethnic
minorities in YIMBY groups._

You clearly lost this argument. You were going to "namedrop" some minorities?
YIMBY groups are overwhelmingly white. An attendee of the first national YIMBY
conference in Boulder noted "it's wealthy and tremendously (88 percent) white;
and YIMBY’s racial demographics reflected that."[1] YIMBY activists shouted
down minority speakers at a recent protest. YIMBY "has a white privilege
problem,"[2] and your comments only serve to reinforce that.

[1] [http://www.theamericanconservative.com/urbs/yes-in-my-
backya...](http://www.theamericanconservative.com/urbs/yes-in-my-backyard/)

[2] Anya Lawler, Western Center on Law & Poverty quoted in
[http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-housing-bill-
failu...](http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-housing-bill-failure-
equity-groups-20180502-story.html)

~~~
pcwalton
> Thank you for conceding that your studio is going to go to another tech
> worker. There goes the (non-academic) argument you just presented against
> Residential Nexus Analysis. The point stands that baristas and teachers need
> BMR housing.

What I said is true in the aggregate. You're trying to argue that, because my
one unit won't solve the housing crisis, we shouldn't build anything at all.
That's silly. If we build enough market-rate housing, then eventually tech
workers won't have to look downmarket. That will free up the lower end for
others and lower rents to affordable levels. There aren't infinite tech
workers.

The problem is that tech workers are competing for lower-end units at all. We
will only solve that one unit at a time, by building a lot more housing at
_all_ levels.

Do you _want_ tech workers like you and me to be taking up rent controlled
studios?

> YIMBY activists shouted down minority speakers at a recent protest.

Sonja and Laura shouldn't have apologized for that, because they didn't "shout
them down". They were simply chanting "read the bill". That is important,
because the bill allows more construction of BMR housing. Since we agree BMR
housing is important, telling protestors to read the bill is perfectly
reasonable.

------
jakelarkin
California and the Bay Area is so screwed. The Powers-that-be looked at SB827
like it was the work of lunatics, and did not engage in any of the significant
concessions that were made. The bill was completely impotent at the end ...
local demolition control + 4-5 story buildings. It drew no interest nor
alternative proposals to actually help solve the housing crisis.

So yeah we're going to end up with middle class social housing lotteries, 1.5
hour commutes and crazy inflation of basic service costs ($3k/month child
care, anyone?).

Every neighborhood can't be a wealthy enclave of SFH. There is literally no
where to live in the central Bay Area on teachers salary much less a Social
Security Disability paycheck. The homelessness epidemic will grow.

It's a rentier economy of land owners and the rent-controlled incumbents. How
"Progressive".

~~~
onlyrealcuzzo
Prop 13 to me seems to be at the root of all these problems.

I'm almost finished with Picketty's Capital in the 21st Century, and Prop 13
seems to be a godsend for rentiers seeking the inequality of 1900-1910.

Overturning Prop 13 isn't realistic since voters are selfish. Prop 13 has GOT
to be the biggest reason behind NIMBY-ism. If the little old lady in the 3
bedroom $2M house had to pay $20K a year in taxes, she'd have sold a long time
ago. But because of Prop 13, her taxes are likely less than $1K a year.

But the sick thing about Prop 13 is that it applies to landlords. You know why
LA is filled with all these single-story rental properties from the 70s in
prime locations? Because the taxes hardly budge, so they're paying about $1
per year per square foot in taxes. Even if they sold for the huge premium,
it'd be impossible to re-invest that money into something with a higher rate
of return.

It also applies to businesses. It's why you see a lot of car washes making <
$1M/year sitting on land worth $20M.

We could potentially modify Prop 13 to eliminate the benefits for rental
properties and have the benefits only apply to the first $1M of real estate.
That'd only affect the top 5%, and only marginally.

But it could eliminate a lot of NIMBYism, I think.

~~~
cryptonector
This. Prop. 13 created incentives to never move out, and thus killed dynamism
in CA. Young people need homes near work. Older people need cheaper homes and
can be further from city centers.

Homesteading tax breaks are one thing, but applying them to all property is
absolutely insane. This is easily the worst thing about it, and it has to go.

As to homesteading, even for homesteading the property taxes need to be able
to go up with housing inflation somewhat at least.

It would be quite different if it was only the actual percentage tax rate that
was limited in growth. I'd want that for income taxes too.

A brake on one kind of tax will spill into another kind. Thus, e.g., in TX
property taxes function as an income tax via the Robin Hood school funding
plan. It would be better to have a proper income tax, but no one will vote for
such a thing without a hard constitutional brake on rates.

~~~
chrisseaton
> Older people need cheaper homes

Why do older people need cheaper homes? Older people have paid off their
mortgages and have 100% equity.

~~~
barsonme
Property taxes and home repairs on fixed incomes.

~~~
simonsarris
Older people are on average on fixed incomes, sure. They're also on average
the wealthiest age demographic in the US.

~~~
barsonme
> They're also on average the wealthiest age demographic in the US.

That's true, but it's a bit misleading IMO. Older folks might have accrued
more wealth than younger demographics, but they're not really adding to it
each year.

For example, the 65-69 age range has a median net worth of ~$194k[0]. However,
somebody in that age range is likely retired and will be living off of that
$194k for the remainder of their life. Conversely, somebody under 35 might
only have a net worth of $6.6k but will likely be bringing in ~$4,000 each
month. Were an individual in the 65-69 age range to withdraw $4,000 per month,
they'd be out of money in 4 years. Realistically, most might withdraw around
$2,000 per month (before or after Social Security). That's where my parents
are at. They really have much less to spend even though they have a lot saved
up.

If you take into consideration home equity, it's more apparent why property
taxes and such are a big deal to older folks: upwards of 80% of their assets
are in their house[1].

[0]: [http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-average-net-
worth-o...](http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-average-net-worth-of-
americans-at-every-age-2017-6) [1]:
[https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/593580d679474c17018b6...](https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/593580d679474c17018b6a04-640-343.png)

~~~
cryptonector
Great explanation.

Retirement starts to get scary when your parents are thinking about it. You
start asking them just how much they have saved, and you start thinking about
how much more income you'll need if you end up having to supplement theirs.

------
senseamp
Best thing a tech company can do to solve CA housing crisis is let workers who
desire to do so work remotely from other states without taking a pay cut
(beyond actual reduction in productivity, if any). Market forces will take
care of the rest.

The effect will be many-fold:

\- Increase in employee satisfaction and quality of life. Those who leave will
have a much lower cost of living and can enjoy the extra money. Those who stay
here will be here because it's worth the money to them.

\- Lower real estate costs for employer.

\- Reduction in employment and resulting housing demand in California.

\- Increase in tech populations in other areas leading to networking effects
and economies of scale, making them more attractive to work at, further
reducing housing demand in CA.

\- Better distribution of tech talent and benefits in the country, reducing
anti-tech resentment and political backlash.

\- Loss of (tens of?) thousands of dollars in income and sales tax revenue for
CA, per employee, imposing a real fiscal cost for not implementing housing
supply friendly policies, and creating proper political incentives.

\- Loss of demand for local businesses and services, leading to a negative
feedback loop to reduce local opposition to increasing housing supply.

\- Opportunities for tech and other businesses that embrace and help
facilitate remote work.

\- Tech companies being closer to average people, aware and solving their real
world problems instead of SF techies' scooter and/or food delivery needs.

Stuffing more employees into the Bay Area and throwing a few bucks to YIMBY is
not a serious solution, it's a fig leaf.

~~~
mavdi
In this day and age, it is beyond my comprehension why anyone would choose
waste a major part of their day in long commutes, pay extortionate amounts to
rent and be bound to a single location. Most coders are way more productive
away from the usual hassle of office space and politics.

~~~
ComradeTaco
If your company believes you can telecommute, it's not a small step for them
to eventually believe that you can be outsourced more inexpensively.

~~~
guntars
If being able to work for any company remotely means I have to compete with
the whole world, I’m ok with it.

~~~
ComradeTaco
Would you be willing to compete wage wise? It's completely possible to find
programmers that speak English for single digit hourly wages.

~~~
guntars
I wouldn't be competing with the single digit programmers, but yes. Geography
still matters for remote employees (due to time zones and the need for an
occasional face time) as does the level of English and obviously the level of
experience. The pool of people that fit that description isn't so large that I
would have to work for minimum wage from the comfort of my mountain cabin.

------
Endama
Housing a persistent issue that comes up a lot on HN. It seems to me that as
tech-workers, we feel the guilt associated with economic pressure adversely
affecting the civic-environment we coexist in but strangely feel that it is
inappropriate (inconvenient?) to take part in the political machinery that
addresses these tragedy-of-the-commons-type problems.

Perhaps there is a collective disillusion with how slow building civic-
consensus is (i.e. too much bureaucracy). For those who may feel this way, I
strongly encourage your support of political action groups like YIMBY. They
provide a low-cost way for you to associate yourself with a group of people
focused on trying to fix NIMBY forces within the housing market.

~~~
zapita
Also make sure to reward politicians who support Yimbi and other pro-housing
policies. For example London Breed and Jeff Sheehy are both endorsed by Yimbi.
If housing is important to you, make sure to take these endorsements into
account in the upcoming election.

~~~
bsimpson
I wish SF had a better mayoral candidate. I feel like I'm stuck choosing
between sane housing policy (Breed) or sane bike/transit policy (Kim). And I'm
sure there are plenty of other dimensions where they're both bad.

~~~
zapita
In my opinion housing comes first. Breed's bike policy seemed reasonable but
maybe I missed something?

The most critical transit issues are at the scale of the Bay area, and the SF
mayor doesn't have the authority or budgets to solve them alone. That will
require strong action at the state level, or the emergence of a new layer of
government with the mandate and budgets to bypass the petty squabbles of
cities and impose a sane bay area transit infrastructure development roadmap.
One can dream...

~~~
dsfyu404ed
>That will require strong action at the state level, or the emergence of a new
layer of government with the mandate and budgets to bypass the petty squabbles
of cities and impose a sane bay area transit infrastructure development
roadmap. One can dream...

Controlling what people can and can't build on their property at the city
level was created to prevent the same problems that exist on the city level
back when they were on the neighborhood level.

I don't see state or county level zoning as anything more than recursion that
will just keep bringing the problem to a different level without solving it.

The fundamental issue is that people are not allowed to or the regulations
make it economically impossible to build housing at high density.

I don't think adding another layer of bureaucracy will make it easier to build
the necessary density of housing.

~~~
zapita
I'm not talking about housing or zoning (although in some cases state
intervention can be useful there too, for different reasons), I'm talking
about transit. The bay area mass transit infrastructure is a joke, it is
nowhere near the level required to support its growth in population and
economic activity. We need more intercity mass transit, and bay area cities
have a clear track record of being incapable of building them through
collaboration. They need an authority above them to make the calls and provide
the funds. That is how other successful urban mega-hubs do it: Tokyo, Paris,
Amsterdam, etc.

------
maym86
Investing in better public transportation is important too so that people can
live further away from the city and commute in a reasonable time.

[http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/03/14/bay-area-
cities-...](http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/03/14/bay-area-cities-
outrank-l-a-on-list-of-longest-commutes-in-u-s/)

~~~
lewis500
better public transportation would only alleviate the problem if it goes to
places where additional supply gets built. otherwise it will just drive up
prices in the places to which it adds accessibility. imagine a teleporter in
stockton that goes anywhere in the bay. unless stockton allows additional
housing near the teleporter, it will just become even more expensive than san
francisco.

~~~
maym86
Who said anything about teleporters?

Edit: My point is that a train is not a teleporter. A train spreads population
density over a larger area, with multiple stops and takes more time to move
people than an imaginary sci-fi device. The comparison is not fair and
pointless. Why not just talk about how trains would work instead of using an
imprecise analogy.

~~~
groby_b
A teleporter is the spherical cow of transportation - it allows for simplified
thought experiments.

Replace with "a bus line to"/"a train to", the outcome is the same. Unless
places with connection to the public transportation system build more housing,
prices there will just be driven up as well. (Housing shortage in the Bay is
_that_ bad)

~~~
maym86
My point is that a train is not a teleporter. A train spreads population
density over a larger area, with multiple stops and takes more time to move
people than an imaginary sci-fi device. The comparison is not fair and
pointless. Why not just talk about how trains would work instead of using an
imprecise analogy.

~~~
lotyrin
Not sure what is left to explain.

In the ways that a system of teleporters/portals is different from a system of
train stations, the former are entirely superior to the latter; if the former
can't solve a problem neither can the latter. The idea is: no transportation
solution (even a perfect, immediate one) provides a supply of anything; it can
only connect a market with a demand to a market with a supply.

You would need to argue that on the other side of a hypothetical
transportation investment that there is a supply, or that it's easier to
create a supply in those market(s).

~~~
maym86
"the former are entirely superior to the latter" and that trains have more
downside than teleportation is exactly why Stockton wouldn't become as
expensive as SF and the analogy is bad in the first place.

------
geebee
I'm all for YIMBYism, but it's framed in a couple ways that I often disagree
with.

First, I actually doubt that loosening zoning restrictions to allow multi
apartment dwellings will harm owners of SFR properties. It'll change the
neighborhood, and may lower housing costs per square foot of living space. I
personally thing that it it's done properly, SF will be a more interesting
place (outside of SF, I've lived in NY and Paris, and the denser places were
nicer and more interesting _to me_ ).

The other thing is... well, NY (Manhattan) and Paris (left bank) are also the
only places I've lived that are more expensive than SF. And the higher density
neighborhoods in SF are among the most expensive per square foot.

I think a YIMBY SF could well turn out to be more interesting, more livable,
and, more expensive. More density might just amplify network effects and
create even more economic activity.

This is why I do think that for affordable housing, we really do need a first
class light rail and subway, like Paris and New York (and a few others). Just
building density isn't going to do it.

~~~
wbl
Density is a response to high housing prices, not a cause.

~~~
geebee
I'm not sure I agree. I think that density can lead to more desirable urban
neighborhoods, which in turn attract higher income workers. Also, network
effects can be dramatic. A higher concentration of knowledge workers can end
up generating a higher level of economic activity, and knowledge workers can
increase their economic output by living in close proximity to each other. A
larger concentration of high income workers can absolutely fuel higher housing
prices. This is why I'm not sure that higher density will lower housing prices
in SF in the long run.

------
davidw
This makes sense for companies to back: how many billions of their investors
dollars just go straight to rent?

~~~
no_one_ever
But once those dollars are given to the employees, why does it matter where
they end up? Why would a company care if it goes to a mortgage or rent?

~~~
awalton
Employers might care about the fact it's taking longer and longer to get
employees to work, which is directly cutting into productive time and adding
costs to their employee commute programs (extra shuttle miles, extra trips,
etc). You know, on top of the terrible hit to quality of life and general
morale that longer commutes generate.

High rent prices have priced out even relatively highly paid professionals in
cities like Palo Alto and Mountain View where many of these companies are
headquartered. That's a tremendous red flag about just how broken the state of
housing is in the Bay Area - if the highly paid tech employees can't live
there, neither can anyone earning less than them (read: pretty much everyone
else). How is that building a sustainable local community and economy?

~~~
nojvek
Paying $4000 a month on a one bedroom apt, means throwing 48k away a year. Tax
is about 35% so your take home income from 150k senior salary is ~50k. That’s
not a lot of money for “all other expenses”.

------
ThomPete
If you are in California I would suggest you look up Michael Schellenberger.
He is a democrat running for office and pro Nuclear.

Here is a good interview with him where he lays out some of his opinions on
amongst other things the problem with NIMBY.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-7DIv3AU1o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-7DIv3AU1o)

------
dangjc
More and more young people come to CA to start their careers, but then take
the experience (and ability to command high salaries) and move to a cheaper
state. We're eroding our talent pool with the crazy high cost of living. The
area will just become full of transient college grads.

------
chrischen
Simple summary of YIMBY and NIMBY platforms:

YIMBY: Build more housing and higher density in desirable places (places next
to transit, places close to work). This will raise rents in areas that are
more desirable (to market rates) and lower rents overall as there is more
supply in the city. This will also deplete supply of rent-controlled buildings
as it becomes profitable to demolish old buildings.

NIMBY: Preserve the right of people already living in a neighborhood to
continue living there. Obviously as a "desirable" area gets more residents and
buildings, it will displace some existing residents. Keep in mind this doesn't
specifically mean poor people (it is not a requirement to be poor to get rent
control), but inevitably some of those residents will not be wealthy enough to
continue staying in the same area due to simply market dynamics. They most
likely will have to move to a slightly less desirable area. But since more
housing is built, they most likely will not have to move that far. While new
developments will cater to the higher income people, older housing will be
vacated for lower income people.

The problem is without letting the market build housing where it makes senses
(economically), which is in desirable areas, housing doesn't get built at all.
Overall this hurts the whole economy as it increases average housing prices
everywhere (while lowering average housing prices in desirable places), and
makes it hard for people that weren't lucky enough to be in an area to have
affordable housing.

~~~
Decade
> YIMBY: Build more housing and higher density in desirable places (places
> next to transit, places close to work). This will raise rents in areas that
> are more desirable (to market rates) and lower rents overall as there is
> more supply in the city.

Not entirely true. New units would cause rents to rise if rent has been kept
artificially low by rent control, but for the last 23 years a California law
has prevented vacant units from being rent controlled: Even rent-controlled
units are market rate if you are trying to move to a new home.
[https://la.curbed.com/2018/1/12/16883276/rent-control-
califo...](https://la.curbed.com/2018/1/12/16883276/rent-control-california-
costa-hawkins-explained)

But building higher density is inherently how you get lower rents when land is
restricted. [http://marketurbanism.com/2018/02/05/density-working-poor-
ou...](http://marketurbanism.com/2018/02/05/density-working-poor-outbid-rich-
urban-land/)

~~~
chrischen
Yes YIMBYism will cause rents in certain places with artificially suppressed
rent to rise, but otherwise generally reduce rents. In SF there's a lot of
resistance since this would also cause landlords to tear down and rebuild
otherwise rent-controlled units.

> Even rent-controlled units are market rate if you are trying to move to a
> new home.

And this is one of the primary holes in how "rent control" helps the poor. It
just helps a lucky few (for no specific good reason).

------
dang
There's also
[https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180503005513/en/Str...](https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180503005513/en/Stripe-1-Million-
Contribution-California-YIMBY-Support) (via
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16988367](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16988367)),
which contains a bit more info, albeit in a press release.

------
mobilefriendly
Feels inappropriate for a payments processor to wade into general political
fights. Stripe is becoming the backbone for payments processing and should
strive to stay above politics.

~~~
stevehawk
It's unfortunate people are just gonna gloss over this comment because today
it's a company supporting a commonly held belief on HN. Tomorrow when it's a
company supporting something HN hates we'll be back on the "lobbying sucks,
corporations aren't people and don't get 1st amendment rights" etc.

------
TangoTrotFox
What are peoples longterm views on the viability of just expanding housing?
The view currently seems to be that prices are so high, so if we enable _x_
more housing units to be built, prices could come down. This might be true,
but in the longrun housing prices are high because it's a desirable area to
live in and they'll inextricably skyrocket back on up as those _x_ become
entrenched and now a new _2x_ want in.

Take Hong Kong as the extreme example of this issue. It's currently the 4th
most densely populated area in the world with 7.4 million people spread around
427 square miles. But that density didn't solve anything as its economic
desirability remains high and it is also one of the most expensive areas in
the world. The same was true of Tokyo decades ago when Japan was the effective
technological leader of the world - the main reason housing is _somewhat_
affordable there now is because they've gone through decades of recession and
decline.

Anyhow, I'm not sure if I'm missing something here because I think this issue
is fairly self evident, but seems rarely discussed.

~~~
Decade
Expanding housing causing expanding demand is not rarely discussed. It is
implicit to a lot of NIMBYism here.

The issue is to be always responsive to needs. Every place that has become
unaffordable, started as a place that was affordable but then stopped
building. Hong Kong is the 4th most densely populated area? Then it has room
to grow. Hong Kong used to build lots of public housing for the growing
population, but I heard that they stopped.

Tokyo is an interesting example. Despite the recession, it is growing, not
shrinking. It’s expensive, but a detached single-family home in Tokyo is
cheaper than an apartment in San Francisco. I hear that average apartment
size, indicating how much space people can afford, is actually going up. We
think it’s because zoning law is national in Japan, and also it legalizes
mixed-use walkable neighborhoods, compared to the HOA-level car-is-supreme
laws in the United States. [http://urbankchoze.blogspot.ca/2014/04/japanese-
zoning.html](http://urbankchoze.blogspot.ca/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html)

If the idea is that you have to plan to be ahead of demand, then the history
of California is that the plan is too timid and unenforceable.
[https://www.thebaycitybeacon.com/politics/of-california-
citi...](https://www.thebaycitybeacon.com/politics/of-california-cities-
failed-to-meet-state-housing-goals-
and/article_a609ae5e-09d7-11e8-a94e-3b67baeaae8b.html)

~~~
TangoTrotFox
I'm not so sure there. There seems to be an almost certainly causal
relationship between the cost of living in an area and the economic potential
in that area. When people come to an area because there is potential to make
lots of money, the cost of living is going to inevitably skyrocket. This is
absolutely the Bay Area in a nutshell.

Recession is not about population growth, but economic growth. The reason
Japan became a [relatively] affordable place to live is because its economy
has been doing very poorly for decades now. To take things to an extreme,
Cairo is growing incredibly rapidly and has a huge density yet the cost of
living is negligible, and that's because the economic potential there is quite
awful. By contrast Hong Kong is still booming and so costs will continue to
increase. When economies do well you get economic migrants, in the sense that
people move to a place because it's economically desirable. And this is the
bay area in a nutshell.

Let's imagine in some crazy world that the Bay Area makes it possible to
regularly find housing for let's say $1500/month. $1500 month with the regular
availability of 6 figure salaries for development means you're going to get
pretty much every developer in tech looking for a job moving there either
until the price of housing starts becoming unaffordable, or the city is no
longer economically desirable.

------
rb808
California is already is the state with the largest population by a long way.
Sure you could squeeze a few more million into the bay area but SF has
geographic restrictions, esp with water. Surely it would be smarter to
encourage more tech firms to move to places where there is more space, like
Denver, Chicago, Austin. Basically anywhere off the coasts. Just give on on SF
already.

~~~
davidw
The city of Tokyo added more housing than the _entire state_ of California in
2014: [https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-
housing-...](https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-
costs-tokyo)

Also, no, California really isn't that crowded. Italy has something like 30%
more people on less land, and still manages to be a massive tourist
destination because it is amazingly wonderful and beautiful, from the
mountains to the cities to the seashores.

~~~
freehunter
And Tokyo is in a huge water crisis and could very soon run out of fresh
drinking water for all of their citizens. California, with substantially fewer
people moving in, is _already_ in a water shortage. Do you think they can
support Toyko-style housing numbers?

I say this as someone who lives in the one of the states that West Coast
politicians want to steal the water from. Instead of shipping our water across
the country to feed the desert, you can... you know... just _move here_. So
the water is fed back where it came from.

~~~
sbov
I live in a suburb of LA and roughly 70% of my yearly water consumption goes
to irrigation. Another 5% goes to the pool. You could rip all that out,
quadruple the density, and get the same water usage.

~~~
rb808
Sure but this is a great example of why you'd want to push back against
increasing density. Surely your life is better with the pool and space. Why
encourage growing the population of the city? Its not like there aren't lots
of other places in the US to live.

------
throwaway84742
Enough money to sway 0.5 a typical SV household.

~~~
almost_usual
Enough money to sway 0.1 a typical Bay Area native multi home owner.

------
luminaobscura
Below comment from nytimes (and linked article/tweet thread) captures the
stupidity of the SF politics very well.

\-----------------

These are the kind of people Square is supporting: racist, ageist developer
shills.

[http://www.sfexaminer.com/sb-827-rallies-end-yimbys-
shouting...](http://www.sfexaminer.com/sb-827-rallies-end-yimbys-shouting-
protesters-color/)

------
abvdasker
As economic opportunity becomes further concentrated in urban areas this issue
will only become more significant. Tech companies have a strong incentive to
combat malignant housing policy in cities like SF so that they can continue to
attract talent. Stripe is doing a great thing here and I hope other companies
follow suit.

------
rajacombinator
Startups could further help this issue by hiring remote and/or setting up
shops in low cost areas. (I have no clue if Stripe does this already.) The
only reason for startups to be in high tax, high cost SFBA is to raise money.
Once you hit escape velocity there’s no reason to stay.

------
zjaffee
If you believe housing prices are a core problem to the growth of your
business why continue to grow in the bay area rather than try and move to a
less expensive region of the country?

Massive growth in the SF housing supply is just politically infeasible at this
time, a million dollar donation won't change that.

~~~
ch4s3
> less expensive region of the country

I don't live in CA, but I get why people want to. Where would you propose?
Where else has a strong economy, good universities, nice weather, a well
educated/talented work force, legal frameworks amenable to tech, good food,
and interesting culture? There just aren't a lot of candidates, and if
everyone moves hypothetically and never grapples with NIMBY policy, they'll
just bring the problem with them.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Nashville, TN, Research Triangle Park in NC, Austin/San Antonio, TX with
Tampa/Orlando, FL coming in as runner up as growing tech hubs.

~~~
capkutay
This is very HN-centric thinking (rational but not scalable). People move to
Silicon Valley to "move to Silicon Valley". They're chasing a dream and they
want to be in the thick of it.

Sure you might find a couple good job opportunities in Nashville or Tampa, but
its hard to compare that to being in the thick of tech industry where you're
right in the middle of the world's top companies, surrounded by lots of talent
to push you further.

~~~
Apocryphon
Invest in technologies and processes to make remote work a reality so you
don't have to be in Silicon Valley to work there.

~~~
DoofusOfDeath
Agreed. Imagine what might be possible if SV employers were willing to spend
$15k per employee annually on making remote teams awesome, as opposed to
paying (I'm just guessing) $25k/year in salary and rent to keep them in SV.

I don't know what a real solution would cost, but it's a question worth asking
IMO.

------
syndacks
With all due respect to the people who think this is _the_ defining issue of
our generation, I think you are wrong. Climate change is the biggest issue of
our generation, period.

~~~
Decade
By housing, we really mean land use. We inherited from our grandparents a
society built around cars, and restrictive zoning that prevents society from
rebuilding away from cars. Just look at the zoning maps, how much of San
Francisco is limited to 40 foot height limits (35 foot if you’re building a
single-family house) and 1 or 2 homes per 2500 square feet parcel. [http://sf-
planning.org/zoning-maps](http://sf-planning.org/zoning-maps)

Without enough homes near jobs, and by not allowing homes to be built without
dedicating lots of space to parking, we encourage mega-commutes.
[https://www.vox.com/energy-and-
environment/2017/8/22/1617782...](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-
environment/2017/8/22/16177820/california-transportation)

------
toomuchtodo
@pc: Any consideration to closing your SoMo office (similar to what Automattic
did [1]) and migrating towards a fully remote org? That would improve the
quality of life of your workers currently required to be near SF by allowing
them to relocate to lower cost of living areas, as changing California housing
policy and seeing the results in lower housing costs due to denser
construction is going to take decades [2].

[1] [http://www.businessinsider.com/automattic-closes-san-
francis...](http://www.businessinsider.com/automattic-closes-san-francisco-
office-to-let-everyone-work-remotely-2017-6)

[2] [http://www.sfexaminer.com/solve-affordability-crisis-bay-
are...](http://www.sfexaminer.com/solve-affordability-crisis-bay-area-housing-
stock-must-grow-50-percent-20-years/)

Disclosure: Worked for a popular and well run fully remote startup for two
years.

~~~
rifung
> That would improve the quality of life of your workers currently required to
> be near SF by allowing them to relocate to lower cost of living areas

I don't think you can assume that people would consider this to be an
improvement in overall quality of life, especially when many (or most?)
current employees joined the companies presumably knowing they would work in
SF.

I personally enjoy seeing my coworkers in person and I know others on my team
have requested more face time with coworkers in other offices.

~~~
toomuchtodo
As long as you are comfortable knowing this problem won’t be fixed for you,
but maybe your kids, that’s a fine stance to take.

It’s reasonable you spend your money as you choose. It’s irrational for a
company to pay you more to be in SF when they can pay talent less that chooses
to live elsewhere.

~~~
landryraccoon
> It’s irrational for a company to pay you more to be in SF when they can pay
> talent less that chooses to live elsewhere.

There’s almost no way its true that they can get the same talent for less
elsewhere. You’re arguing that somehow every major tech company is
simultaneously irrationally acting against their own very strong profit
motives.

~~~
s73v3r_
I don't think many of them have bothered to try.

------
frgtpsswrdlame
So one thing I always have trouble with on this debate is that it feels
totally one-sided. There's smart people on the YIMBY side making the case for
building. But then NIMBYs are always portrayed as a caricature of the self-
interested rich guy. So I read this article and then I click through to
[http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-housing-bill-
failu...](http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-housing-bill-failure-
equity-groups-20180502-story.html) this article and I see lots of poor people
opposed SB 827 as well. But even then there isn't really a strong op-ed or
anything like that making the case against YIMBY. Where do I go to read that?
If you're a YIMBY what's the toughest NIMBY article or argument you've come
across?

~~~
tlb
The underlying motivation for NIMBY is that people who own houses want their
value to go up, and for their neighborhood to be too expensive for poor people
so that their public schools will be well-funded and full of other upwardly
mobile kids, and for their streets and parks not to be crowded.

It's a perfectly rational set of motivations. It's the same reason people move
to nicer neighborhoods in the first place. With limited development over
period of time you get the benefits of living in a more expensive
neighborhood, without having paid the premium for it.

These arguments don't play well in public, especially in a socially
progressive city like SF, so the rhetoric gets confusing. NIMBY groups
sometimes float arguments such as: building more housing will make
neighborhoods less affordable.

Some well-meaning progressive people who don't understand supply and demand
are fooled by such arguments, and support NIMBY policies too, so it's not just
homeowners. In the end, most people don't know what to think, and gravitate to
the status-quo (ie, limited development.)

~~~
nradov
This is a pernicious stereotype and mostly wrong. Have you ever actually
talked to a NIMBY? The most committed NIMBYs have lived in the same place for
decades and have no plans to sell. They don't care much about property values.

What they do care about are traffic, parking, noise, school overcrowding, and
other quality of life issues. Some people simply don't like living in densely
populated areas. If you want to win over the NIMBYs then you have to address
their concerns rather than just demonizing them as greedy property owners.

~~~
eldavido
My wife's grandmother is a CA NIMBY. Prop 13 and all.

She just wants things to continue how they are. Paying taxes on her 1970s
property value, living in the same place, etc.

I'm pro-YIMBY but I can't say I don't see the NIMBY's point. If you're some
average Joe who moved into Cupertino, and now some crazy number of people
commute to work through your neighborhood, and you're going to get high-rises
everywhere, and the prices of everything around you (groceries, restaurants,
gas, etc) will skyrocket, you might not want it.

At bottom I view all of this as a tug-of-war between the whole tech employment
system and CA's political environment. Overall I'm pro-YIMBY but you do have
to admit the absurdity of trying to cram ever more people into smaller and
smaller space when the work is perhaps the easiest to do remotely that there
ever was. It all seems sort of silly.

~~~
api
LA/OC and SF are global mega-cities full of people who seem to want to live in
small towns in the country, yet choose to live in global mega-cities. It's
weird.

~~~
timr
It's not weird. SF wasn't a "global mega city" until _perhaps_ the late 90s
(it's honestly pretty debatable that it is one today).

If you purchased property in a quaint, romantic seaside town in 1980, and
starting in 2012 the global tech industry decided it wanted to make that small
town into New York, why _wouldn 't_ you oppose it? I'm not saying I agree, but
the motivation is perfectly rational.

Honestly, the only _irrational_ thing here is the desire of the global tech
industry to cram itself in a 50-square mile patch of land on a peninsula in
the Pacific ocean when it could go _literally anywhere in the world_.

~~~
tmh79
commercial enterprise in SF didn't start in 2012,

GAP global HQ, Levi Strauss global HQ, PG and E HQ, Wells Fargo global HQ,
Charles Schwab global HQ, Pottery Barn/Williams Sonoma...

~~~
eldavido
The top five US public companies are Apple, Google, facebook, Microsoft, and
Amazon. Three of them are HQ'd here. Netflix isn't top-5 by market cap but I
wouldn't be surprised if it gets there before long, maybe displacing
Microsoft.

You can certainly make that argument but it's on a whole different level now.
Apple is earning 60-80 billion in profit _per quarter_. Many of the companies
you list don't even have market caps that high.

------
Karishma1234
One of the things that tech companies could have done is to diversify the
locations across USA instead of just investing in California. California is
subject to earthquakes, potential attack from north korea, insane illegal
immigration and overall leftist hippie policies.

It would have been great if all the large tech companies would invest also in
Nevada, Oregon, Arizona etc. and give good competition to Calfornia.

I am worried and California's response to housing crisis might end up creating
even more worse crisis for us.

------
jadedhacker
YIMBYism, that is, additions to housing stock made by private developers, is a
false fix. The idea that additional housing stock is needed is correct, but
the idea that more and more powerful landlords and developers will create
space for vulnerable people is plainly wrong. More luxury condos, buildings
rented by foreign investors that never occupy them as a place to park money,
and all the problems of the powerful setting the agenda for everyone develops.

Instead, we need public housing, strict regulation, and yes more units built
at the behest of the state.

~~~
davidw
Plenty of YIMBYs are fine with "do both!": more market rate housing supply,
and more subsidized housing for those who can't afford the former. The more of
the former you produce, the more you can concentrate the latter on the truly
needy, and not people like teachers, firefighters and so on who have good jobs
that are important to society.

~~~
bigdubs
[https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2018/03/01/gue...](https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2018/03/01/guest-
opinion-market-rate-housing-vs-affordable.html)

That is explicitly what's being advocated by Scott Wiener.

