
Seattle, in Midst of Tech Boom, Tries to Keep Its Soul - vanderfluge
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/technology/seattle-in-midst-of-tech-boom-tries-to-keep-its-soul.html?_r=0
======
mattress
Took a job in Bellevue in April and moved from Philadelphia to Seattle. So far
it's a been an interesting experience. I've encountered many people hostile to
software engineers in general. A bunch of people immediately ask if I work for
Amazon with a hint of disdain after I state my occupation. So it hasn't felt
super welcoming so far.

I get it, even in some neighborhoods in Philadelphia the same thing is
happening. Although to a much lesser extent, but there is tension between
locals and newcomers. I was initially sympathetic to the locals, but now it
just seems people will complain about the change no matter what.

But you have no right to complain about this gentrification when you are
operating newly built apartment complexes, charging a premium to tech workers.
And then go on to say you have Amazon prime. Screw you, Owen.

~~~
wfo
Seattle has never been particularly welcoming to newcomers; people there tend
to be insular and it can be hard to make friends if you don't already know
people (even before the amazon/tech stuff -- plenty of articles about 'the
seattle freeze' that predate it). Being from there helps. Not being in tech
helps -- there are so many new software engineers meeting one just isn't very
interesting. You can hardly blame people; if every single new person you meet
is a software engineer you get real sick of hearing that real fast. You appear
like you're a dime a dozen, because as a software engineer transplant in
Seattle you are and to anyone not in tech your work is utterly boring; if you
can, try talking about hobbies instead and avoiding talking about work
entirely. That might help, but it's definitely an uphill battle in that city.

Also everyone hates amazon. So if you don't work there, be outwardly and
explicitly proud that you don't -- that's a huge selling point when it comes
to making friends. Partly because of the white collar sweatshops (people in
seattle generally liberal and pro-labor), partly because of the blue-collar
sweatshops, partly because 'large corporation = evil', partly because the
countless new techbros with no respect for Seattle culture who spend 11hrs/day
at work and don't have time to develop a personality romping around town give
it a real bad reputation.

~~~
pera
I keep reading all these scary stories about how unwelcoming people from
Seattle is; I moved here back in February and my experience until now have
been completely the opposite: almost every Seattleite I meet is super friendly
and talkative, at the point that it feels almost like being in a small town.

Maybe I am just lucky? but I think Seattle is one of the coolest cities in the
US, except of course for the traffic.

~~~
steve-howard
I think it depends greatly on your personality, how you spend your free time,
what part of the city you're in, and how your first few experiences shapes you
perception.

I find Seattle to be unwelcoming, personally, but it's not that people aren't
friendly when you can get them to talk. It's the pervasive avoidance of eye
contact and general desire not to engage with strangers that can make it a
lonely place.

~~~
pera
I had only lived in big cities before (Buenos Aires and NYC) where is very
unusual to have any kind of interaction with strangers. In my experience here
people starts conversations all the time in almost any public space (grocery
stores, parks, buses, etc.) and I have to say that I'm not used to that haha
but I really enjoy it. I wonder if this is a neighborhood thing maybe?

------
pm90
> _John Criscitello placed posters in Seattle 's Capitol Hill neighborhood
> proclaiming “Welcome! Rich Kids,” and “Wish you weren’t here.”_

Its hard not to feel angry at people like this. "Rich Kids" really? These
"Kids" spent years developing their engineering skills to get to the point
where they are now. Are engineers paid a lot? Of course. But we're certainly
not in the same category as those who inherit wealth. Most engineers that I
know come from incredibly humble backgrounds.

~~~
pazrul
This guy is a terrible hypocrite; he creates art bemoaning new people in his
neighborhood, while being a recent transplant from New York himself. He's
cashing in on the worst kind of 'us vs them' mentality.

Some people make excuses that he's only rallying against the stereotypical
brogrammer, but I don't think that's true. He's really against anyone being in
his neighborhood he didn't personally approve of. He's the same as the
neighborhood watch keeping the 'undesirables' out of the cul-de-sac.

~~~
devindotcom
I think "terrible hypocrite" is a major overstatement. The guy is a gay artist
who moved to an area built and populated largely by the gay and creative
community, only to find it in the process of being colonized by moneyed
interests and neighborhood tourists. He identified with the original
neighborhood profile strongly and strongly rejects the new one, as I do —
though unlike me, he's making his distaste known. I for one salute him, and I
love his posters. And by the way, he's not getting rich off selling a couple
handmade prints he makes in his own shop.

~~~
vectorpush
Quintessential hipster bullshit. His community doesn't have any special rights
to dictate the culture of the region and if he doesn't like the newcomers he
can leave. It's also absurd to presume that just because someone has a high
paying job they cannot qualify as a legitimate part of the community. Your
petty and insular mindset is gross.

~~~
devindotcom
We might have to fuck off because the rent is too high, but it doesn't mean we
have to do it quietly. The people coming in should know how much they are
resented by the people they are displacing.

The mechanics terraformed capitol hill, the current community colonized it,
and now the next wave is buying it.

No one here is dictating culture - they are asserting their preference to a
community that was built over decades over another that is superseding it, and
which they find distasteful.

~~~
vectorpush
II reject the idea that you can judge someone as a cultural reject based on
the salary they take home.

~~~
devindotcom
Us too. We also reject the wealth-forward culture helping itself to the
neighborhood, not necessarily the people who take part in it. But very often
we find the representatives of that culture to be intolerable as well. Ye
shall know them by their fruits, and so forth.

------
crabasa
I have lived in Seattle since 2009, first working at Microsoft and now working
remotely for a Bay Area company. For people who aren't familiar with the
Seattle area, it is cleaved into 2 parts:

1) The city of Seattle or the "west side". This area is increasingly dominated
by Amazon, local startups and engineering offices for Bay Area companies like
Facebook and Google.

2) The cities to the east of Lake Washington (Redmond, Bellevue, Kirkland) or
the "east side". This is the domain of Microsoft, Expedia, Concur and a
smaller set of startups.

Most of the intense change has occurred in Seattle and _specifically_ in the
South Lake Union area where Amazon is located. Yes, there has been change and
growth elsewhere, but nothing that I would consider alarming.

I'm personally optimistic that Seattle will find a balance between growth and
continuing to have an enviable culture and cost of living.

~~~
nicpottier
I think Capitol Hill is the most glaring change to me in the past 5 years. One
of the neatest and most unique neighborhoods in the city, in a way iconic to
how Seattle was seen is now filled with brand new condos and multi-use
buildings. For god sakes there have been gay-hate crimes on Broadway.

Yes, tons of new development has happened in SLU, but that area wasn't much of
an established neighborhood to live in before, so it doesn't bother me as
much.

Seattle is quickly losing any remaining "grit" and that as someone who has
always called it home that is seriously depressing. I'm in the Central
District which to some degree feels more like a Capitol Hill (except with
black people!) but I imagine it is only a matter of time before the condos
invade here as well.

~~~
txru
It seems to me that the fact that Capitol Hill was the unique, Bohemian, and
affordable neighborhood that it was in your memories was just an accident of
the 20th century. It's: * Right next to downtown * Has great views and * Has
very easy access to a major road, I-5.

Why on earth wouldn't having credentials like that make it prime property,
even if a certain retailer didn't exist?

But from 1950 - 1990, nobody wanted to live in a city, they wanted to drive in
from their suburbs. So cities became refuges for the interesting and weird,
while the rest of America had their half-acre.

That trend is reverting now, and the real value of property in major cities is
being reevaluated, and at something closer to what it probably should be.

Also, I really liked this Wonkblog[1], not just for highlighting the
differences in densities in world urban areas, but also because he talks about
the mentality of "Well, I've moved here now, but the development can stop
now!"

[1]
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/06/th...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/06/there-
is-no-such-thing-as-a-city-that-has-run-out-of-room/)

~~~
seathrowa
> * Right next to downtown * Has great views and * Has very easy access to a
> major road, I-5.

> Why on earth wouldn't having credentials like that make it prime property,
> even if a certain retailer didn't exist?

Crappy transit (49 is your only bus route for many parts of the hill and is
slow and only runs on Broadyway; 10/11/43 serve very specific areas); I
wouldn't call the I-5 access great (the intersection at Denny is frequently
really slow and backed up because people run lights and block the
intersection).

~~~
txru
Bus routes can be fixed, that's a months-years problem. I'm sure the city will
adjust at some point, probably before 2018, to give Capitol Hill really
amazing service.

I was exaggerating a bit... but the highway basically runs right beside the
length of the neighborhood. It's pretty convenient to get on, even if Denny is
totally packed.

------
Kalium
Any time I see a line about a city "keeping its soul" or a company "coming for
its soul", I have a reasonable expectation that "soul" is going to be defined
myopically. The recent past will be regarded as perfection, not to be tampered
with.

Sadly, this article continues that pattern. The past is privileged and the
future is to dance only to its tune. No wonder people are upset that things
are changing - privilege is being challenged.

~~~
derrickdirge
But I have so many great memories of the past! I literally don't have any
great memories of the future.

------
CheckeredBook
Another born-and-raised Seattleite here. Grew up there, went to UW, etc.

Seattle lost its "soul" a long time ago. For me, Almost Live! going off the
air was really the bookmark that Seattle was quickly becoming a homogenized
west-coast city (no different really than SF or Portland).

I don't really think Amazon is worth singling out, either. Amazon doesn't
help, but Microsoft's a monolith that's been around for quite some time. They
used to (and still do) pull a shitload of the UW CSE graduating class straight
into MSFT, and nobody wants to live in Redmond or Bellevue until you're
starting to think about a family, a house, etc. It also goes totally
unmentioned here, but biotech was/is huge in SLU.

My point being, money's been flooded into Seattle for quite some time now. If
they wanted to keep Seattle "Seattle", i.e. different from the other west-
coast cities, the time to plan that out was 15 years ago.

I also think it's hilarious to hear people bemoan the death of the hill, and
even more hilarious to see signs like "rich kids leave" and shit like that. I
bet they weren't around a decade ago when the gay community used to say the
exact same thing to hipsters that were flooding into the hill (myself
included), even down to the insinuation that all hipsters were rich kids.
Hilarious to see history repeat itself.

~~~
rconti
Yep. Born and lived there all through the 80s and 90s before moving to the Bay
Area. I still read the Seattle Times online, and the gripes about Californians
coming in and ruining the place in the past few years are hilarious; it's been
the same story for decades. Blame someone else. Boeing engineers.
Microsofties. Whatever, it's always somebody else.

Thanks for mentioning Almost Live. Every few years I search for DVDs, search
torrents, etc. Truly one of the saddest days in Seattle when it went off the
air.

------
peatmoss
I've only lived in Seattle for about 6 years, but have seen / felt a rise in
rents over that time. When we moved here, lots of rentals were offering one or
two months free rent as a move in special. Now, not so much.

Because he was sick of friends moving away, a friend of mine made his rookie
run for the city council this past year. He didn't survive the primary, but he
had some good ideas about housing that have in part been taken up by other
candidates going forward.

The first was a mandatory inclusionary zoning policy, which would give
developers building incentives, such as allowing additional height, in
exchange for a fixed percentage of units being affordable. Affordability here
was defined in terms of HUD's guidelines for percentage of income spent on
housing (in this case assuming someone earning Seattle's decidedly not-livable
minimum wage).

Some form of that first idea seems to have survived my friend's candidacy to
live on in other proposals / candidate platforms. Another that I thought was
clever, but hasn't seen much uptake, tried addressing the problem from the
demand side. Here the idea is that Seattle would run its own voucher program
to subsidize rents for low-income people. This one was a little more ambitious
and would require new revenues, but is a nice alternative to supply side
options.

And of course a purely supply side solution doesn't entirely solve the
problem. New units tend to command higher rents in general. Also, a glut of
condos might not reduce prices so much as encourage speculation from non-
resident owners. Certainly more units need to built, but new construction
doesn't entirely solve affordability in the near term.

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
This is a severely under-appreciated point about housing costs. I live in a
college town and rents have been climbing to the degree where the ratio of
income to housing expenses is the highest in the nation, leaving New York and
San Francisco in the dust.

Every once in a while there will be more proposals to build condos over
existing houses or apartments. We've been here before: housing stock is
considerably increased while rents around town are given an implicit "go" to
be raised across the board. If you're a financially struggling student at an
Ivy League school you're not just gonna up and leave cause your rent went up
another $100-$200. You're just gonna take out more debt. It doesn't help that
aside from campus housing there are like 3 landlords in the whole city

Building housing in a bull market is almost always the right choice, but let's
not pretend rents are going to magically fall. Or stop rising. Housing is one
of the most elastic goods one can find. Everyone has to sleep somewhere.

~~~
xxpor
>I live in a college town

Boulder? Because if so, PLEASE vote down the land use issues on the ballot.

[http://www.citylab.com/housing/2015/10/they-are-coming-
for-o...](http://www.citylab.com/housing/2015/10/they-are-coming-for-our-
neighborhoods/408994/)

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
Ithaca, where we don't have the luxury of flatness so everything's hemmed in
by the lake and the hills, like a reverse geography San Francisco

~~~
mahyarm
You can build on hills. I've lived on a hill.

------
zw123456
I moved to Seattle in 1980 and fell in love with the city and it's unique
culture. Seattle has grown up for sure but in my view the growth has been
handled overall pretty well and we have kept a lot of the coolest part of the
culture here(music, beer, coffee, movies check out the SFF, outdoor festivals
every weekend during the summer, great outdoors, the sea and mountains and so
on). I have been tempted many times by offers from the Bay area and the valley
but I still love this place and just can't bring myself to leave, although my
second love is SF :) In a lot of ways I see Seattle and San Fran as sister
cities.

~~~
mosquito242
Then what would Portland be?

~~~
chrisdbaldwin
The middle child.

------
spudlyo
I've lived in Seattle since the late 80s when I got the hell out of Olympia WA
where I grew up. I remember when it was nearly impossible to find a decent
tech job in the city, and you had to cross a bridge to Bellevue or Redmond,
which is non-optimal for so many reasons. I for one am happy as hell that tech
is booming here. If you are thinking of coming here, do it, lots of us are
welcoming to transplanted tech nerds.

------
capkutay
The west coast has a liberal population less receptive to change than
Bush/Cheney era Republicans. SF has a lot of misguided anger towards tech
workers.

~~~
redwood
The gender imbalance is a bummer got almost everyone

------
Scuds
State has zero funding for the mentally ill, so they all congregate in the
downtown, many around the largest tourist trap here, the Pike Place Market.

There are Maseratis driving by parks full of tents here.

------
edgyswingset
I recently moved to the eastside and haven't been experiencing much disdain
for being a tech worker. Most of my spare time is spent heading into the
cascades to hike the amazing trails, though.

~~~
seathrowa
The eastside is less obsessed with preserving an image of itself as a "gritty"
place. Parts of the eastside (I'm looking at you, downtown Bellevue) are sort
of obsessed with the opposite — shows of ostentatious wealth.

The Cascades have a lot of great hiking and are reason enough to live on the
eastside :). If you don't already, get an "America the Beautiful" pass
([http://www.nps.gov/findapark/passes.htm](http://www.nps.gov/findapark/passes.htm))
which will get you into National Forest areas as well as National Parks
(Rainier, Olympic National Park). And of course the state Discover pass gets
you into a few areas (Tiger Mountain is not super wild, but very close).

~~~
Splines
Also if you have a 4th grader don't forget about
[https://www.everykidinapark.gov/](https://www.everykidinapark.gov/)

------
oberstein
Seattle is a godless soulless husk of what it once was, attitudes that spawn
things like
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_the_Bastards_Out](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_the_Bastards_Out)
didn't win out. Try living in Utah for a while (as a real or pretend Mormon of
course) if you want to see what real culture and community tastes like even in
2015.

I work in Seattle but I'll never live in the city proper. The rest of King
County, excepting the south side, is at least a decent and modestly priced
($900/month single bed apartment) place to live even if it has no soul.
Unfortunately it won't last, Bellevue is in the same place Seattle was not too
long ago.

(This is more hyperbolic than it probably needs to be.)

------
darmok
While growing up in the Seattle area in the 70's & 80's, I always thought
Seattle was the coolest city in the world. It's still fun for me to visit and
I do miss the trees, lakes, and Mt. Rainier, but to me it has completely lost
its charm. All that was once cool and unique has been monetized and
whitewashed.

~~~
kelukelugames
Whitewashed? I think this is the most diverse Seattle has ever been. Just a
smudge above Portland.

~~~
monknomo
I think darmok is using whitewashed to mean "sanitized" or "cleaned up" not
"has a greater percentage of white people".

Like when congressional testimony whitewashes a friendly fire incident, it
generally means that they are covering it up or making it look better.

~~~
kelukelugames
Oh I agree. I was in Seattle in 2005. My girlfriend was here in the 80s to
90s.

------
paulsutter
People in Seattle very friendly. They are unhappy about rising rents. There is
an eerie consensus that Amazon is to blame, but I haven't heard negative
remarks or attitudes towards individuals, just towards Amazon the company and
the tech boom in general.

I'm really impressed by the city government. Seattle is much more pro growth
than San Francisco. There's much more construction. Like SF, people also blame
construction for rising prices, but it's pretty normal for people to reverse
causality (developers build because of expectations about demand, demand
doesn't happen because developers build. But like most professions, if you
aren't a property developer, it may not be obvious).

~~~
gozo
I don't think it's that simple, especially when talking about things like
"luxury" development that changes the city's housing standard.

~~~
paulsutter
Imagine you're the loan officer in a bank. A developer comes in and says "I
need a loan to build a luxury building. There's no projected demand, but that
doesnt matter, becuase luxury buildings /cause/ demand for luxury units".

Seriously, would you loan him the money?

When you view it from the perspective of a property developer or bank, it's
pretty clear that projected demand is the /cause/ of building construction and
not the other way around.

Amazon moving downtown will create a lot more demand for higher end units. And
that demand is the reason higher end units are being constructed. Amazon's
plans for their downtown campus (it's huge - all the way over to Denny)
/caused/ many residential developers to buy and develop lots downtown.

Think about those 45 minute waits to get on I5 right now. Imagine what it will
be like with thousands more Amazon employees in line. All those people waiting
in line will be thinking "I need to move downtown, this commute is crazy".
That mental image is projected demand. If you picture that, you too will want
to build apartments downtown.

------
geebee
It's fascinating and sad to read these articles, about some cities struggling
with the effects of tech wealth while other cities would see it as an almost
unqualified boon.

We constantly hear about a desperate shortage of software engineers from tech
companies, as well as talk of "six figure" salaries. But the median price for
housing in SF is well over a million now, and if you're hoping to have kids
and raise a family, trying to buy a SFH or 3br apartment, even in the
remaining unfashionable and mildly blighted areas south of 280 (not really
unsafe, but a bit depressing in spots, lots of dumping, garbage, paved over
front yards with abandoned cars), even that you'll be lucky to get in for much
less thank 900k unless the house needs a lot of work or is very small with no
expansion possibilities. A shortage of young people who are willing to work
for salaries too low to put down real roots is not a shortage of workers, it's
a wage vs cost of living problem.

SF needs to build (certainly the bay area needs to build), but I don't see
construction in the bay area as more than part of the solution. We will
eventually have to accept that it isn't desirable or possible to cram all the
programmers into a 7x7 grid and a narrow corridor down the peninsula.

Truth is, there are a lot of interesting old cities in the US that are pretty
much neglected.

I thought Patti Smyth said it best:

"The Godmother of Punk recalled coming to New York in 1967 when she was broke
and the city was "'down and out,' and you could get a cheap apartment and
'build a whole community of transvestites or artists or writers.'" But today,
she says, "New York has closed itself off to the young and the struggling. But
there are other cities. Detroit. Poughkeepsie. New York City has been taken
away from you. So my advice is: Find a new city."

I don't think that it's realistic to expect a coordinated effort from the tech
"industry", which doesn't really speak with one voice or have one opinion.
Market forces may eventually create the change we'd like to see, but for now,
the tech industry really has obtained a subsidy in the form of control over
the immigration system that prevents these market forces from working as they
should. The first step is to stop taking claims of a worker shortage
seriously, and don't give tech companies a crutch that allows them to avoid
making the adjustments that will help everyone in the long run (in other
words, don't allow tech companies to control visas that force workers to work
in San Francisco or the valley, make sure all members of the workforce are
free to chose their job, field, educational and career path, and where they
live, in response to market signals).

Just to be clear, as I have in the past, I feel positively about general
immigration, I believe that immigrants must be free to choose their own path
in live, including what they study, where they live, who they will work for.

~~~
alain94040
_housing in SF is well over a million now, and if you 're hoping to have kids
and raise a family_

Why isn't a nice condo in Mountain View for $700K good enough? 1,300 sq.ft is
plenty of space to live. For instance
[http://www.mlslistings.com/property/ml81517677/1945-mount-
ve...](http://www.mlslistings.com/property/ml81517677/1945-mount-vernon-
ct-13-mountain-view-ca-94040)

~~~
amyjess
Because you can get a nice house with almost 2000 sq. ft. in Texas for under
$300k [0]. We're not talking about somewhere out in the country or in some
distant exurb, either: I'm talking about housing prices I just looked up in a
nice neighborhood within the City of Dallas. It's a safe neighborhood with
good schools (speaking from personal experience: I grew up in that exact
neighborhood).

Also, I currently rent a 1500 sq. ft. townhouse in Dallas for $1220/month.
There's no way I'd be able to get anything nearly that nice in the Bay Area.

[0] [http://www.dallasrealestate-
homes.com/Dallas%20Subdivisions/...](http://www.dallasrealestate-
homes.com/Dallas%20Subdivisions/Pepperwood%20Estates.htm)

~~~
Nicholas_C
Fellow Dallas resident as well. Everyone here in Uptown keeps complaining
about rent increasing but these HN threads help me realize how good we have
it. The job market is extremely hot as well.

~~~
amyjess
Actually, I live in Far North Dallas. Rents in Uptown are too rich for my
blood.

I get all the benefits of living in a suburb (low rent and lots of space), but
I can still walk to Addison Circle when I want to go out and have fun. It's
the best of both worlds to me.

------
pnathan
hey HN, I'm a happy software writer in Seattle, am happy to get coffee or
exchange emails about Seattle culture from my perspective. I love meeting
other programmers and talking about our field (or other stuff too. :3 ). Email
& twitter in profile!

------
kyleblarson
I lived in First Hill / Downtown from 2001 until 2011, and from the
perspective of an engineer who is into outdoor sports, I can't think of a
better place to have lived. I averaged 3 nights a week of skiing at the pass
after work during the winters, and 2-3 nights a week of climbing at various
locations (Index, 32, 38, Gold Bar) in the summer. There are also dozens of
equally accessible mountain biking locations, sailing, fly fishing, hiking,
etc. Sure there are more tech bros and self important hipster douches now, but
it's still an awesome place to live. (I moved out to the mountains and live in
a remote town of about 200 people in North Central WA now.)

------
bluedino
>> John Criscitello placed posters in Seattle's Capitol Hill neighborhood
proclaiming “Welcome! Rich Kids,” and “Wish you weren’t here.”

Don't hate them, cash in on them. Start a high-end or artistically product and
sell to the 'rich kids'.

~~~
gaius
Exactly as Banksy has done in London

------
baobabaobab
The true soul of Seattle is complaining about the new people moving here.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79SF7UoO1pI&feature=youtu.be](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79SF7UoO1pI&feature=youtu.be)

------
malandrew
Yay, yet another city trying out the horribly naive and misguided "Below
Market Rate" housing model that only serves to distort the local housing
economy further.

I had a front row seat to experience the process because someone I date got
into a BMR house about 1.5 years ago.

For those that don't know, BMR housing programs usually work like this:

\- In order to build a new building, the builder must agree to allocate X% of
the units in a building to be below market rate. In SF, I think it's currently
15% of units, or 20% equivalent of a building in another project that is
located within 1 mile of the original project (I might be off a bit here or
the requirements might have changed, but that's the gist of it)

\- To qualify to be able to buy one of these units, someone needs to be an SF
resident and make between 70% and 110% of the median income, with most units
limited at 90% of the median income.

\- The price of the unit is tied to the median income in the city forever
(i.e. you can't sell at a "profit" like with regular housing). The only way
you make money is if the city experiences real income growth above and below
the median income (remember: median income, not mean income)

\- From what I saw, units are ~ 1/3 of their fair market value. The unit my
partner got into was a 1061 square foot, 2 bedroom, 2 full bath in a Hayes
Valley luxury condo. The price was about $330k with a $60k down payment.

\- There is a down payment assistance program and special lenders approved.
This means it's possible to come to the table with like $10k, since the
assistance program covers the other $50k. This down payment can be paid any
time during the length of the mortgage including at the end of the 30 years.
The mortgage is a safe fixed rate loan.

\- Getting into a unit involves going through a class, filling out some forms,
getting an approved lender and then applying to available units you qualify
for. This puts you in a lottery to be selected. From the lotteries I saw, few
enough people either know about the program or qualify that you probably have
a 1/10 chance of getting into a unit. If you apply to 10 buildings, over 1-2
years, you're almost certain to get in. Once you're selected, your application
goes through additional scrutiny to check if you qualify. If you do, you close
on the home.

\- Overall, on the unit my partner got she's paying about $2100 for a super
nice two bedroom that would probably rent for $5000-5500.

\- You can't sell the house except through the BMR program at a price relative
to the median income when you decide to sell. There are two formula for
calculating the price, you choose whichever is higher. You cannot leave the
home to anyone in your will unless they also qualify through the BMR program
(you don't really ever own the home except legally because of all the
restrictions).

\- Although you can't sell the home at a real profit in the future, the
discrepancy between the current rent and the mortgage is essentially "profit"
earned today. The $3000 saved per month every month (or whatever amount the
person would be paying otherwise to stay in a market with great economic
opportunities) is essentially profit earned off the housing now instead of
from a future sale of an asset. This applies to rent control as well. Having
rent control from 15 years ago and 1x the median income means you're probably
doing as well economically as an engineer paying market rate today and earning
2x the median income (or something like that. I haven't done the exact
calculation. It's even more if you have rent control on a multi-room unit and
charge market rate like most people I know with rent control)

My biggest beef with this program is that it creates an asymptotic condition
(hard limit on who qualifies based on specific percentages of median income).
In economic systems, asymptotic conditions basically always great pathologies
and boundaries that people try to game.

One of the biggest pathologies I see has to do with how much of the market is
still excluded from affordable housing. In SF, I've read that it's estimated
that you need to earn about 4x the median to be able to afford a home. The
reality is that it's worse than that because homes are now being sold in all
cash deals above asking before homes even hit the market officially (i.e. put
in MLS).

This means that basically everyone between 90/110% of the median income and
400+% of the median income are excluded from the market for no reason
whatsoever. The better non-asymptotic way to create affordable housing that is
accessible to all is to change how much assistance based on a calculation that
compares your current income (or better, your income in SF over the past three
years averaged to make it harder to game) relative to the current median
income.

The other issue I have with programs like this (and rent control) is that it
conveniently satisfies the housing needs for a large percentage of voters
without actually addressing the underlying problem of supply. By definition,
50% of voters are below the median income and 50% are above it. There will be
roughly some bell curve like distribution around this central value and I
would imagine that skewness trends towards the lower bounds, meaning that a
huge chunk of voters are satisfied and no longer care or participate in
solving the real problem, which is supply.

Taking rent control as the example, the 172,000 rent controlled units probably
impacts 3/8s of San Francisco voters. These people vote in their short term
economic interest which is protecting rent control and tenants rights and lets
them be an ostriches about long-term economic interests, which is affordable
housing availability as their housing needs change. That rent control studio
that worked with you when you were 25? What happens when your partner moves in
when you're 30? How about when you and your partner get married and decide you
want a kid? By the time you need to go back to the market to find appropriate
housing, there is a massive stepwise jump between the $ per person on your old
rent control and the current rent control rates. The only thing that solves
this problem is a moving supply and demand curve. Since demand is only going
up in the area, only rising supply will actually solve the problem.

Rent control also creates another perverse asymptotic condition which is that
effectively becomes a mutex on housing units preventing development and
increasing supply, especially when a tenant is a member of a protected class.
By the time that member of the protected class moves on or passes away, it's
likely that another tenant will be protected in any building with enough
units, meaning that building will likely always have a mutex on it.

Anyways, back to BMR since this isn't about rent control. It's a bad program
based on no understanding of economics that doesn't really solve the
underlying problem (supply) and the good intentions don't magically make it a
good idea. The only good thing about Ed Lee's proposal is that it paves the
way for taller units. That proposal wouldn't be half bad if it weren't for the
asymptotic condition of a specific % of median income and financial assistance
relative to your income.

~~~
rconti
It's a huge game of economic whack-a-mole, where "solving" problems here just
causes them to pop up in another place. It is very, very difficult to work
around the basic laws of supply and demand, and arbitrarily picking winners
and losers is hardly a fair way of allocating anything.

Nice to see a comment from someone who's seen it up close.

~~~
malandrew
The sad part is that I clicked the link to the Seattle proposal and they are
repeating the same mistakes as San Francisco.

------
sakopov
I'm a software engineer with a great job in midwest but I have never been
happy here and have been contemplating about just packing my stuff and moving
to Seattle for the past 3 years. I don't have any job leads but I have enough
in savings to get a place for 6 months. Does anyone think it's sane to just
move without job offers?

~~~
smithkl42
Probably so, if you've got good technical skills. At the very least, you ought
to be able to land a couple of contracting gigs to tide you over until you
find the right long-term position. There's a lot more demand here in the Puget
Sound area for good technical skills than there is supply, so unless you're
just not a very good developer, you ought to be able to find something
reasonable.

~~~
voltagex_
A week of rejected job applications has me wondering if I'm not a good
developer at all...

~~~
smithkl42
Don't worry too much about that. Apply for a ton of jobs, for weeks, if not
months. Assume that for 80% of them, your resume will get tossed immediately,
for no good reason whatsoever. Not your fault. Similarly, for reasons beyond
your control, you'll probably fail half of the phone screens, and when you
actually get called in, you won't get past 90% of the interviews. Don't worry
about it: that's just how it goes. Those numbers will vary substantially with
the market, your experience, your innate horsepower, and your asking salary,
but the fact is, although there are a lot of developers out there, and
employers are careful who they hire, there are also a lot of job openings.
Play the numbers game: my rule of thumb is to apply for 100 jobs to get one
that you want.

------
kpennell
I don't know if I ever really saw Seattle's 'soul' when I lived there for 3
years. Granted, I lived in the North part. I saw a lot of white and asian
people (mainly dudes) looking at their feet or looking at their phones.
Seattle is one of the most difficult places to strike up a conversation with
strangers or get people to actually want to hang out (worse if they are
locals).

South Seattle, on the other hand, truly has 'soul'. Rainier Beach at one point
was the most diverse zip code in the entire USA. You got to a coffee shop
there and you'll see groups of east africans, latinos, all mixes of asian,
white, african american, you name it. It's got gritty parts, nicer parts, and
all sorts of interesting restaurants and grocery stores. The Amazon people
don't tend to live or congregate down there as much.

As far as cap hill, fremont, wallingford, u-dist, you can keep it. A bunch of
bland ass wealthy white/asian dudes looking at the ground.

I moved to SF and lived there for a couple years. The gentrification and rent
is bad but the diversity and mix of people across most of the neighborhoods
still beats north seattle hands down. It was a way more eclectic interesting
experience than anything my Seattle time could offer.

~~~
astrange
The Asians must be very happy they've made it and can no longer be considered
diverse. Have you tried getting dim sum with them? You get to eat every part
of the chicken.

------
idibidiart
Here is an idea for the FTC: break Amazon into 3 companies: cloud
infrastructure, online merchant, and logistics company.

------
captrh
Seattle is not for young people. The dude pool is 2:1 in a market where beer
is regularly 6.50 a pint.

~~~
tacos
Marrying young and endless dinner parties where first-time homeowners proudly
declare "granite countertops!" like checking that box on a list of materials
is some major achievement. A bit painful.

But there's a dirty, edgy, interesting indoor culture there caused by the
shitty weather. It sprouts up around everything from sex to music to art on
occasion. Go find it.

~~~
Kluny
Is that the only option available for married life? Surely it's possible to
marry someone who is interesting and continue doing interesting things after
you're married?

~~~
LLWM
Most of us don't see any reason to continue doing interesting things beyond
making ourselves look appealing during courtship.

~~~
Kluny
Really?

------
multinglets
The people who (allegedly) don't perceive Seattle's shitty attitude are almost
guaranteed to already be card-carrying turboleftist hipsters + standard
uniform, pretty much every single time.

edit: OK, sometimes they're attractive college-aged women. Because
progressives have such deep respect for their cultural contributions and
intuition, I'm sure.

------
beatpanda
I have a question for all you unrepentant capitalists out there -- why is it
that massive concentrations of wealth pretty consistently tend to lead to a
decrease in the overall quality of life?

Because if the boosters of capitalism are to be believed, the path to making
society better on balance is to enable people to accumulate unlimited amounts
of personal wealth and then sort of let that wealth diffuse through the people
around them.

This isn't actually happening in places where wealth from the tech industry is
concentrated. The rising tide is mostly just sinking everybody, and
obliterating everything that isn't explicitly about making money in its path.

So what gives? How can you argue anybody is better off for all this?

~~~
twblalock
Every one of your paragraphs contains a strawman.

