You aren’t missing anything, but this is not exactly news—the Bay Area is one of the most expensive places in the US, so its amenities are largely for those who can afford the rent. And, ultimately, most of its benefits are simply reflected in higher real-estate values for landowners. Lower zoning regulations would help, of course—as would getting rid of the insanity known as Prop 13.
The Bay Area is praised for having a large tech sector, and a history of supporting counter-cultural and otherwise non-normative people. So right away you get lots of geek subcultures (broadly defined), some of which overlap with LW-interests. There might be other overlaps too.
Outside of those factors, I’m quite certain that the Bay Area (or California in general) is not being praised as a model of good governance on things like housing, land use, budgeting, or doing anything in less than three decades, four referendums and five judicial opinions! Within the United States, the region has a mixed reputation. Something like: It’s a pretty nice place in spite of itself, (provided you can afford it and don’t do something crazy like try to raise children in the area).
With reference to the article, San Francisco has had a fairly unique problem with homelessness for decades (among US cities). The history of this is complicated, but it doesn’t seem that a lack of skilled workers or available economic power is a dominant factor, so I’m not optimistic that the latest tech boom will do very much to help the problem.
EDIT: I meant to post this as a direct reply to the OP, outlining the view from inside the US a bit more. I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said.
The tech boom will make scarcity of housing worse, especially for the most vulnerable people in the area—no doubt about it. That’s why there were anti-Google protests in SF in the first place. If you want it to be a win-win situation, you gotta have the land-use policies that go with it—which means, having sane property taxation (no Prop 13) and slashing zoning regulations.
Pretty much. Also, increasing liquidity/mobility in the housing market. Prop 13 is an especially foolish and insane policy because it incents real estate owners not to sell, in order to keep their advantaged taxation on the house.
With all the good publicity the Bay Area gets here, this piece makes me worry that the benefits may not be for everyone.
As always, what am I missing?
You aren’t missing anything, but this is not exactly news—the Bay Area is one of the most expensive places in the US, so its amenities are largely for those who can afford the rent. And, ultimately, most of its benefits are simply reflected in higher real-estate values for landowners. Lower zoning regulations would help, of course—as would getting rid of the insanity known as Prop 13.
The Bay Area is praised for having a large tech sector, and a history of supporting counter-cultural and otherwise non-normative people. So right away you get lots of geek subcultures (broadly defined), some of which overlap with LW-interests. There might be other overlaps too.
Outside of those factors, I’m quite certain that the Bay Area (or California in general) is not being praised as a model of good governance on things like housing, land use, budgeting, or doing anything in less than three decades, four referendums and five judicial opinions! Within the United States, the region has a mixed reputation. Something like: It’s a pretty nice place in spite of itself, (provided you can afford it and don’t do something crazy like try to raise children in the area).
With reference to the article, San Francisco has had a fairly unique problem with homelessness for decades (among US cities). The history of this is complicated, but it doesn’t seem that a lack of skilled workers or available economic power is a dominant factor, so I’m not optimistic that the latest tech boom will do very much to help the problem.
EDIT: I meant to post this as a direct reply to the OP, outlining the view from inside the US a bit more. I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said.
The tech boom will make scarcity of housing worse, especially for the most vulnerable people in the area—no doubt about it. That’s why there were anti-Google protests in SF in the first place. If you want it to be a win-win situation, you gotta have the land-use policies that go with it—which means, having sane property taxation (no Prop 13) and slashing zoning regulations.
Hope being that if taxed at accurate values and permitted to do so, some of the more desirable locations would morph from houses into condominiums?
Pretty much. Also, increasing liquidity/mobility in the housing market. Prop 13 is an especially foolish and insane policy because it incents real estate owners not to sell, in order to keep their advantaged taxation on the house.