Re:$100k/year still might not be enough to buy a home
by magduf on Wednesday October 16, 2019 @10:54AM
(#21271021)
>As for transport, cars are already pretty unfeasable in SF with the population as is. Whats so bad about investing more in public transit and biking?
Simple: Americans hate public transit and biking, and want to stick with cars no matter how infeasible it is. They'd rather commute two hours, each way, in gridlocked traffic than get on a train. And they don't mind becoming fat because of this lifestyle.
>As for crime and traffic, most larger cities in Europe are much cleaner and safer than SF.
That's true, but I will point out that because of Europe's use of diesel, most European cities reek of diesel fumes, and this is bad for public health there.
Re:$100k/year still might not be enough to buy a home
by jiveturkey on Wednesday October 16, 2019 @12:19PM
(#21272102)
> I'm not convinced.
It doesn't matter if you are or not. The majority of people influencing city council and other legislative bodies believe it.
Rising housing prices are already dramatically changing SF. If you want to let residents maintain their way of living, I don't see how thats achieved by pricing poorer residents out of the city entirely. I'm sure most residents would prefer to live in apartments in SF than move to another city entirely.
As for transport, cars are already pretty unfeasable in SF with the population as is. Whats so bad about investing more in public transit and biking?
As for crime and traffic, most larger cities in Europe are much cleaner and safer than SF. More residents means city hall has more money to play with, which it can re-invest into schools, parks, the police, public transit and other things. Cheaper accomodation makes it easier to re-house homeless people and it makes homeless shelters more affordable for the city.