Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You really don't sound much different than those who seek to prevent people from moving in, let alone building to accommodate them. Meaning, come up with a neutral sounding reason to block undesirables from coming into the neighborhood.

Density would be too high, we must preserve cultural heritage, green space laws, restrictions on building heights, builds designated as heritage sites, and on and on and on.

If you build up or down you can accommodate a larger number of people. The key word here is "build". This activity is prevented by an amazing number of rules, regulations, and laws, all of which have nice sounding names but the end result is the same.

Zoning boards and those involved in creating political districts all need to be managed by as neutral groups as possible. All work needs to be as public as possible as well. Preventing someone from building more housing is not really different than the government condemning the land and taking it.



I would disagree with that. I'm for building and renewal. Too many SFers want to keep SF preserved as if it was the turn of the past century. They want a small town bucolic feel. But reality is that the sleepy town is in the midst of a metropolis but many residents resist the notion, even those affected by the policies restricting growth.

Renters and owners alike bristle at the possibility of their neighborhood changing its look and feel. They use words like gentrification, manhattanizatioon,; they also support restrictions on building as ridiculous as the ones which state that the shadow from new buildings shall not block the sun on a public park between specific hours. So its couched as nature friendly, in the meantime it is strictly anti building. People want to eat their cakes and have them too.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: