1. Pick a few contiguous blocks, it doesn't really matter where.

2. The logic being, if you have to screw people out of their equity (retirement) might as well make the smallest footprint.

Screwing people out of retirement? When you buy a house there is no contract with the city to keep the city from expending and improving. Such an agreement would be against capitalism. And... What about the teachers, janitors, and other necessary individuals that make a community work? Most of them have to drive hours just to get to work in the Bay Area since all the housing is going to engineers making at least 100k a year.

For a single earner making at least $100k a year, I'm looking at moving away from the Bay Area for any notion of not blowing $50k on rent every year.

I can't even touch the housing market in an area inconvenient to my work without literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in liquidity. That is cash that I simply do not have, nor do I have wealthy relatives that can front me the money. Please don't assume that just because an engineer has, what looks like a high income on paper, that they can even afford houses that cost millions of dollars in a high cost of living region as the Bay Area.

My coworkers that have set down roots here have to drive hours, and they're also making "at least 100k a year". What about the engineers that need jobs and homes, and the people that move just for their job? City's full, go away.

> I can't even touch the housing market in an area inconvenient to my work without literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in liquidity.

You and the parent agree. guywaffle's comment talks about people who make much less than you and are in the exact same situation. Absolutely true that a high income doesn't make spending 50% of it on housing any better. And someone who makes a smaller amount doesn't even have that option. You're both screwed, just in different degrees.

How large of a place are you looking for? $4,000 rents a three bedroom in much of the bay area.

There was no assumption. You just completely missed my point.

You are looking to moving out of the Bay Area for cheaper rent. There are people who make a lot less than you who can’t afford to live here. They drive from Tracy and Stockton to get paid a fraction of what you get. Stop crying.

I'm moving for more than cheaper rent, but thanks for playing. There are people that make six figure salaries that can barely afford to make ends meet due to the cost of living, and that is a fact. Try swallowing $4000 a month in rent for the suburbs, after CA taxes, before utilities/food/gas/car upkeep. Even people with six figure salaries are having to face a reality that they are being pushed out in favor of people with even more money. If I want to buy a house, guess what? I'm commuting from Manteca or farther. Affording Tracy would be a luxury. It's a numbers game and more people than you're willing to admit are hurting.

You can get a nice two bedroom 20 minutes from downtown Austin for ~$600k. You can get in on the ground floor and be part of the NIMBY block in 15 years when nobody can afford to live here anymore! :)

Loved Austin when I lived there. I went back earlier this year and it just wasn't the same. The hypergrowth over the past few years has turned moderately annoying traffic into a driving nightmare, which compounds everything because Texas is very car-centric.

Btw you realize this all started because you didn’t understand my comment and decide to be a troll about it.

Ad hominem is the best way to get the point across. Don't ever change, sir/madam.

Umm hypocrite?

Of course there's no contract like that. What there is instead is a democratic process for the residents of the city to guide and shape how their city evolves and improves.

You're watching it play out, but some seem to not like that the residents of the city have a greater say than the "not residents" of the city. I find that perfectly natural, normal, and desirable.

No, what you’re seeing is a bunch of greed. Residents in cities like Berkeley and Palo Alto love the economic boom the tech companies are causing, but they aren’t willing to shoulder the responsibility that the boom brings. So they are screwing over their neighboring cities forcing the burden on them.

Or the greed of people who want the big salaries of SV but don't want to pay the big rents that go along with it. See, that word is loaded and works both ways.

“Screwing people out of their equity” is not nearly what is happening here.

To sell the 3 units in the new lot, they will have to be relatively high end and there will probably be no clear net plus/minus in property values attributable to them. Instead of fighting the change tooth and claw, the neighborhood should be ensuring that the development as-built is high quality. For one, the lot setbacks look like to be as much as 20 feet, which is quite good.

Or you could just find a cheaper place to live.

Or if an area is zoned for this type of construction, which it is, then maybe the neighbors should stop whining and those homes should be built.

Where? How about Antioch or Richmond ?

That's what they said about the Mission several years ago.