A decent article detailing the mismatch between people coming vs. housing starts: http://www.paragon-re.com/Supply_Demand_Money_and_Demographi...
Other metro areas have balanced these competing needs much better.
A lot of the laws proposed still require any proposals to follow the existing zoning (a law championed by the governor last year is one example), etc. but just prevent a few motivated individuals from blocking growth.
I'm not aware of any country or city (besides London) that does this to young people. It's insane to be making over $100,000 anywhere in the world and be expected to pay $5000/month for a studio just because building some high-density housing would diminish some entrenched gentry's view of the ocean.
The NIMBY's can all go and shoot themselves in the face, as far as I'm concerned.
I don't think anyone really has suggestions that enable anyone to by a family home in Palo Alto. But, the question is do local residents deserve the right to keep out newcomers.
Who has what rights (who deserves what) is not an abstract truth we discover. It’s decisions we make.
Also, when does someone become 'local'? All the time on Nextdoor I see, "we need to stop the building", "traffic is bad", "there are too many people". Yet, the loudest complainers are people who literally just moved to my town in the last year. The building, etc... is what allowed them to move here in the first place so don't complain about it now.
SF is not the only city experiencing these issues, although they are amplified. Nearly every nice weather coastal city in the US is growing out of control right now as people flee much of the center of the country.
It's true that anyone is legally allowed to live here.
It's also true I've excluded, by legal fiat, almost all Americans. I've declared my lifestyle superior to all others and no one else can live here except those who enjoy the same.
Palo Alto is not as extreme.
But it still limits the number of houses, tells everyone what lifestyles are legally permissible (don't forget to include parking or yards!), and excludes vast swaths of Americans.
This isn't good governance. It's not healthy for the region, and it's not healthy on a national basis.
This is why many nations take away zoning power from localities and move it to regional or even national levels.
It's also why we don't have the power to vote for who lives next to us, at least explicitly. That would be local governance, but quite cruel and prone to abuse.
Why do we give localities this right to implicitly vote out people?
I would argue it is just as cruel and misguided as voting to ban your neighbor
This simply cannot work. The most desirable areas in the world are going to have high prices that exclude "normal people" period.
> Houses are for sale, of course, but suppose I passed a law requiring all new houses to be mansions. I'm talking palace of Versailles level amenities, out of reach for all but the most wealthy.
This actually happens all the time. Every time a new subdivision is built in the suburbs this is exactly what happens. Hell, even new condos being built in my small city in the downtown area do this. So unless you're going to mandate that every single development that will house human beings stratifies the cost such that each income level can afford the exact same setup and you don't allow people over that income level to purchase housing, then you will never solve this "problem".
Does it suck and is it not fair that you're not mega rich and can afford to live in Manhattan or in the hippest part of SF? No. That's just a market economy. I also can't buy a Ferrari and have to drive a Honda around. Can I afford a 1.5mm shack in SF? Sure. Why would I do that when I can afford a 1.5mm giganto-mansion on the Great Lakes?
City ordinances, national ordinances, any of those are fundamentally the same thing. You're just arguing about what's most prolific because that's in your field of vision. Why can't I buy an affordable house in Switzerland? Why are they keeping average Americans out?
Why can't I afford a 2br/3b flat in Paris next to the Louvre? Why don't they just fill that place up with skyscrapers?
etc. etc.
Maybe people want to keep their neighborhoods how they are? Maybe the charm that makes a place what it is has value, and should be protected? Why should they lose tens-hundreds of thousands of dollars in value because other people want to move next to them?
I've lived all over the world. Moving sucks. But life is what it is. If I wasn't making the money I am now where I live and it was too expensive then I would just leave. You don't have to work for Google or Facebook or whatever. You can go have a huge impact at a smaller company that really needs the talent somewhere else in the country. If Google can't find good people because rent is too high and they aren't raising wages, don't be an idiot and move there and just get paid shit and then complain about it. Move to Michigan and work in automotive, or move to Nashville and work doing something there. Don't act like you don't have choices. You do.