What is HN's obsession with disclaimers? People are free to have their opinions for whatever reason they want and aren't beholden to explain why.

I'm not demanding that the parent include it. But just as you should take someone's advice on why Google's X technology is superior to all competitors' with a grain of salt if their paycheck comes from it, so does their position on SF housing if they happen to own a house.

Because a biased opinion given without evidence and effort can be discarded as such. If you want people to take what you say seriously, then you have to be willing to disclose your "skin in the game"

If you aren't, then your online opinions are akin to writing in chalk on the nearest fence, and just as valuable.

> If you aren't, then your online opinions are akin to writing in chalk on the nearest fence, and just as valuable.

This is the default case no matter what. Either way, I can explain my opinion if I feel like it, adding a "disclaimer" feels like some sort of weirdly perverse anti-pattern to make someone feel as though their opinion is invalidated by having a reason for holding it in the first place.

And the same goes with people who don't own property; their opinions are biased because they want to be living the good life in SF for less.

Does it make a difference? You are entirely free to dismiss my opinion. By the same token, does not owning a house in SF automatically lower the validity of one's opinion on demanding denser housing?

I mean, yeah of course. If we're arguing about zoning laws for Detroit, we're making our points without the outcome actually having an effect on us. In this case, I presume it affects both of us.

I'm guessing that you're a relatively recent house/condo owner in the Bay and you want to make sure your investment is relatively protected by creating fewer (or ideally no) housing units. It's fair given your point but don't make it about the lack of public green space. No one is arguing for 100% apartment zoning rights in SF but you seem to create this false dichotomy to support your point.

What's wrong with 50% apartment zoning or regulations that allow building as long as all zoning requirements are met?

In that case, I want to see disclaimer for people who are for rezoning. I have a feeling a lot of people making comments are not even living in SF. Following your logic, their comment don't count.

I don't care about my investment in housing; I don't even live in SF. I just don't think rezoning will help. NYC has way denser than SF and its housing is also more expensive than SF.

Speaking of building more. I think getting rid of rent control will greatly help the situation. I don't see people wanting rezoning clamoring for getting rid of rent control.

> I don't see people wanting rezoning clamoring for getting rid of rent control.

It's because YIMBYs are already a minority to begin with. The only political pseudo ally they have are pro-affordable housing organizations. Arguing for both rezoning AND no rent control will be the end of their platform and they know it.

Getting rid of rent control is pro-affordable housing. It will encourage building new units and lower the overall housing cost. Why would "pro-affordable" housing organizations not support it? Oh yeah, because they are enjoying the low rent and just as much NIMBY as the owners.