The housing crunch in California, where rent can be extremely expensive from San Francisco down to San Diego, is driving an intense ideological struggle among liberals, NBC News reports. Some don't want development bringing high-rises to their neighborhoods, while others see that as the best way to bring in housing, adding it will help the environment as well. Advocates on either side call each other "dumb and venal" and "masters of hypocritical progressivisim" -- both sides claim the other is entitled and doesn't really understand the needs of the poor -- but there's no clear consensus about what should be done.
The high cost of housing in San Francisco has brought the median rent for a one bedroom to $3,300 per month. Recently, some state political leaders frustrated by the inaction of local officials have moved to fix it.
Are you claiming conservatives want low cost high rises in their leafy upper class neighborhoods? Pull the other leg.
This is just Nimbys vs Hippies, selfish vs do-gooder, or conservative vs liberal.
Are you claiming conservatives want low cost high rises in their leafy upper class neighborhoods?
There are no conservatives in the leafy upper class neighborhoods in San Francisco, so try again, the Nimbys in this thread are limo liberals.
People forget that the City and County of San Francisco is an ultra dense 49 square miles (smaller than many suburbs of other cities), so any discussion of low income housing is going to impact "leafy upper class neighborhoods" full of wealthy liberals, like the Barbary Coast, Seacliff and Nob and Russian Hills. At some point the limo libs are going to have to accept low income housing in their enclaves or show their true colors, which is the point of the piece.
My 29 year old nephew just rented a 460 sq ft Studio Apartment in Cow Hollow for $2990/mo, but it was a deal because it included a parking space, which typically goes for $350/mo in the City.
A recent survey in SF by the Chron showed that the numbers of registered Democrats has fallen by 5% in the last 24 months with a corresponding rise in Decline to State, with most of those changes happening in, wait for it, Barbary Coast, Seacliff and Nob and Russian Hills.
Hardly a coincidence.
As an aside, I love the phrase "masters of hypocritical progressivisim", it really captures the absurdity of the Proggies on this site alone.
I guess the market has spoken. SF is the most desirable place to live thanks to all those super productive liberals.
If only people in -------- US cities were smart enough to be liberal.
$4000 s month for an 800 square foot loft apartment in the Dog Patch. I know because I owned it (and briefly rented it out) after my sister passed away and recently sold it. Insane. How can the SF housing market NOT crash?
$4000 s month for an 800 square foot loft apartment in the Dog Patch.
New York is just as expensive. These are small cities and everyone wants to live in them.
I posted this on another thread.
The population of Los Angeles County alone would place it ninth in population behind only the states of California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Georgia.
Currently they're building high rises all around Los Angeles. Which may house more people. But we are in an earthquake prone city.
Drudge Retort Headlines
20,000 Republicans Just Voted for an Actual Nazi (55 comments)
Facebook Explains (44 comments)
Austin Bombing Suspect Dies in Detonation (40 comments)
Trump Congratulates Putin (40 comments)
Americans Still Without Power Six Months After Hurricane (39 comments)
U.S. Will Borrow $1 Trillion This Year, Up 84% . (38 comments)
Trump announces $50bn in China tariffs (29 comments)
Firing McCabe is Practice for Firing Mueller (26 comments)