8 ms·

Already seeing the responses about how their worldview is simplistic, how the protestors are acting out against people who are there to help them... but does an

Already seeing the responses about how their worldview is simplistic, how the protestors are acting out against people who are there to help them... but does anyone want to comment on the actual complaint that the influx of tech money is increasing the cost of living for those not working in the industry? It seems equally simplistic to just dismiss their complaints when they seem to have a very valid problem. This is always the downside of gentrification. It's not like their claims haven't been heard before, but I don't know if it's ever happened so quickly. Does anyone living in the bay area want to comment on whether their claims are actually valid and, if so, what can be done to help it?

adamnemecek 13y ago
If nothing else, they are implying that they are entitled to living there indefinitely.
- chrislgrigg 13y ago
  Are they? I'm not so sure. They have a right to feel upset that money has disrupted (and not in some cool buzzword startup kind of way) their way of life by driving up the cost of living without trickling down to them. A lot of what was written struck me as sour grapes, frustration at the ease with which some people live while they slave away, but it doesn't change the fact that gentrification can destroy communities and culture.
- fennecfoxen 13y ago
  Society has a variety of ways to entitle people to live somewhere. One involves purchasing the property. You could also enter into a lease with your landlord that gives you the right to renew for a very, very long time (which you'll pay for, of course, if you get it.) Now, if you want to talk about rising property taxes driving people out, that's a legit thing to talk about, but really more of a NYC problem than SF.
- sophacles 13y ago
  Um, that is exactly the same claim the counter arguments are making: "we're entitled to move in wherever we want" I know I'd be pissed if my community - not the place I happen to live, but the actively built relationships I have with people in my neighborhood (years of freindship, acquaintance, understanding and so on) - were disrupted because a bunch of new people showed up and forced that community to be scattered by mechanisms such as "we can't afford the rent anymore". There is a lot of value that is destroyed. It isn't monetary, but it is a form of wealth. That is a real problem. I get that a lot of people don't give a shit about interpersonal things, and think the notion of community is pointless. But a lot of us do care. Basic decency should suggest paying attention to this sort of thing. Just because you have more money than someone, doesn't mean you get to kick apart their world. Building a new community for oneself, a deep one anyway, is not easy, and gets harder when you have to keep doing it - you start to say "what's the point - I don't have enough money and time to do this again the next time the better off need a new playground".
  - ameister14 13y ago
    You can protect your community. If you have something valuable, people are going to want to purchase it. Decline their offer. If you don't actually own the thing, but the person that does is a member of your community, persuade them not to sell. What you don't do is break the valuable thing hoping the would-be buyers go away, or blame them for wanting the thing you value.
    - sophacles 13y ago
      This is a beautifully off point solution! Should my community start getting disrupted by higher rent, (half my neighborhood is long-term tenants, there is not rent control here, or anything like that), I will surely tell the people who don't own the apartments they rent to not sell!
      - ameister14 13y ago
        Who owns the apartments? Talk to them. If they're not members of your community, work with your city council to pass ordinances making that arrangement more difficult. Why would the rent be higher if the people that own the apartments didn't raise it? They have a choice in this; they can live the way they did two years ago.
SDGT 13y ago
Supply and Demand is amoral, and section 8 housing promotes a "bare minimum" mentality for landlords. So now, we have this huge supply of well off middle class kids like myself (I say kid at 26, pretty sure most of us still feel that way) who want a less expensive place to live but can pay for a decent residence. Housing costs go up as tenants actually matter to landlords, and the poor folk living on the taxpayers dime get edged out. I don't know how to fix poverty, and I don't know how to make landlords care about tenants that don't give a shit about their home and don't have the cash to fix what they break. If everyone could become a responsible human being over night we'd have a lot of problems fixed. What I do know is that having a larger taxpayer base in a city is a boon to everyone around. I'm from Ohio, and have watched this happen in most of Akron and Cleveland but in the exact opposite direction; The well off middle class left for anything that wasn't East Cleveland, and those that are too poor to leave seem to just destroy the neighborhood. If everything was crime ridden shit before, then it obviously isn't the fault of the new folk that moved in. The same goes in reverse.
eli_gottlieb 13y ago
Umm... I spent last summer in the Bay Area, does that count? I mean, here's the thing: housing prices in the not-shitty and already-gentrified parts of the Bay Area are batshit insane. As in, $1100/month for a rented room in a shared house, insane. And for this money you got your own private bathroom, use of the kitchen and backyard, and weekly maid service, because holy crap gentrification. Yet that was actually the cheap deal compared to paying $1200/month to rent a bunk bed in a "hacker house" further away from work via AirBNB. The only possible good move I see is for the Bay Area to approve massive amounts of housing construction and increased density, but political will is 100% stacked against that move because local governments are almost always dominated by well-off local landowners (who've usually resided in the same single town for decades) rather than by the large population of salariat-class transplants who rent.

adamnemecek 13y ago

If nothing else, they are implying that they are entitled to living there indefinitely.

chrislgrigg 13y ago
Are they? I'm not so sure. They have a right to feel upset that money has disrupted (and not in some cool buzzword startup kind of way) their way of life by driving up the cost of living without trickling down to them. A lot of what was written struck me as sour grapes, frustration at the ease with which some people live while they slave away, but it doesn't change the fact that gentrification can destroy communities and culture.
fennecfoxen 13y ago
Society has a variety of ways to entitle people to live somewhere. One involves purchasing the property. You could also enter into a lease with your landlord that gives you the right to renew for a very, very long time (which you'll pay for, of course, if you get it.) Now, if you want to talk about rising property taxes driving people out, that's a legit thing to talk about, but really more of a NYC problem than SF.
sophacles 13y ago
Um, that is exactly the same claim the counter arguments are making: "we're entitled to move in wherever we want" I know I'd be pissed if my community - not the place I happen to live, but the actively built relationships I have with people in my neighborhood (years of freindship, acquaintance, understanding and so on) - were disrupted because a bunch of new people showed up and forced that community to be scattered by mechanisms such as "we can't afford the rent anymore". There is a lot of value that is destroyed. It isn't monetary, but it is a form of wealth. That is a real problem. I get that a lot of people don't give a shit about interpersonal things, and think the notion of community is pointless. But a lot of us do care. Basic decency should suggest paying attention to this sort of thing. Just because you have more money than someone, doesn't mean you get to kick apart their world. Building a new community for oneself, a deep one anyway, is not easy, and gets harder when you have to keep doing it - you start to say "what's the point - I don't have enough money and time to do this again the next time the better off need a new playground".
- ameister14 13y ago
  You can protect your community. If you have something valuable, people are going to want to purchase it. Decline their offer. If you don't actually own the thing, but the person that does is a member of your community, persuade them not to sell. What you don't do is break the valuable thing hoping the would-be buyers go away, or blame them for wanting the thing you value.
  - sophacles 13y ago
    This is a beautifully off point solution! Should my community start getting disrupted by higher rent, (half my neighborhood is long-term tenants, there is not rent control here, or anything like that), I will surely tell the people who don't own the apartments they rent to not sell!
    - ameister14 13y ago
      Who owns the apartments? Talk to them. If they're not members of your community, work with your city council to pass ordinances making that arrangement more difficult. Why would the rent be higher if the people that own the apartments didn't raise it? They have a choice in this; they can live the way they did two years ago.

SDGT 13y ago

Supply and Demand is amoral, and section 8 housing promotes a "bare minimum" mentality for landlords. So now, we have this huge supply of well off middle class kids like myself (I say kid at 26, pretty sure most of us still feel that way) who want a less expensive place to live but can pay for a decent residence. Housing costs go up as tenants actually matter to landlords, and the poor folk living on the taxpayers dime get edged out. I don't know how to fix poverty, and I don't know how to make landlords care about tenants that don't give a shit about their home and don't have the cash to fix what they break. If everyone could become a responsible human being over night we'd have a lot of problems fixed. What I do know is that having a larger taxpayer base in a city is a boon to everyone around. I'm from Ohio, and have watched this happen in most of Akron and Cleveland but in the exact opposite direction; The well off middle class left for anything that wasn't East Cleveland, and those that are too poor to leave seem to just destroy the neighborhood. If everything was crime ridden shit before, then it obviously isn't the fault of the new folk that moved in. The same goes in reverse.

eli_gottlieb 13y ago

Umm... I spent last summer in the Bay Area, does that count? I mean, here's the thing: housing prices in the not-shitty and already-gentrified parts of the Bay Area are batshit insane. As in, $1100/month for a rented room in a shared house, insane. And for this money you got your own private bathroom, use of the kitchen and backyard, and weekly maid service, because holy crap gentrification. Yet that was actually the cheap deal compared to paying $1200/month to rent a bunk bed in a "hacker house" further away from work via AirBNB. The only possible good move I see is for the Bay Area to approve massive amounts of housing construction and increased density, but political will is 100% stacked against that move because local governments are almost always dominated by well-off local landowners (who've usually resided in the same single town for decades) rather than by the large population of salariat-class transplants who rent.