Oakland is already an attractive new location for tech companies. It is my sincerest hope that the policy-makers in Oakland see what happened in SF with housing, and are proactive in controlling rent to avoid displacing low-income people and most importantly, the people who contribute to the city's culture.
Instead of controlling rents, wouldn't it be better to adopt a housing policy which increases supply for everyone? For example, the office space is projected to house 3000 employees in 2 years. Why not plan on building about 3000 housing units in that same time frame?
Because that would decrease housing prices. What will happen is homeowners will talk about the need to keep Oakland's character, which is codeword for stopping development of housing to increase home values.
And the renters (like me) will complain that the city (well, the permitting process they approve) is only promoting units for the financially relatively better off and is not subsidizing enough low rent units. So they scuttle low income housing to spite middle income housing.
Why should a city subsidize housing? That seems like something the market should drive primarily. For that same reason, I'm skeptical about whether zoning and permiting are a good thing in general.
Zoning and permitting are a good thing. It means a city can have long term planning and allocate resources and budget things accordingly. Mishmosh cities have existed and do currently exist in emerging economies, they tend to be chaotic and crime ridden messes.
That said, I think zoning needs to be updated to reflect more modern economies. Mixed use, company housing (it's had a stained past, but still it can work, if governed properly), and the permitting should be less political and very much so more pragmatic. I rather detest the politization that has overtaken infrastructure building when it involves private investment.
With regard to subsidized housing, I think we need it to allow the poor to afford a place to live. Now, I don't think anyone has a "right" to live in a particular place, but you also should want to facilitate people of all sorts of income levels to live in a given municipality.
I'm not claiming diversity of vibrancy or any other pseudo reason people like to list, as they are based on feel good emotions. In addition, there are plenty of places that are very monocultural and are very vibrant (Tokyo) but at the same time we should try to include a diversity of strata and allow for people to move into the mainstream stratum, as most seek to achieve, in the fist place.
Well, if cities control the zoning, they then have to ensure for the welfare of the housing market. If you, for example, block developers from adding more housing (cough San Francisco), you are supporting raising housing costs and pushing lower income citizens out of your city.
If the market should drive the equation and the municipality meddle with either side of it, it's not a market in the way one normally infers.
Oakland has rent control, with rates of %1.5-%3/yr. If it's a condo, house or 4-plex or under, normal rent control does not apply. Even then, the max is %10/yr, with a max of %30/5yrs.
So if you have a $800/month tenant, it will take over 15 years to get their rent up to the current market rate of ~$2200/yr.
I do not understand the rationale, a government program fails disastrously creating literally the opposite effect desired. And the suggestion is to have _more_ of said program?
You must understand that government is the opposite of a typical business. For example, NASA's space shuttle unexpectedly blows up, so congress immediately gives them a bunch more money under the rationale that they failed because they are "underfunded". If a business faced the same failure, they would lose business, their stock prices would fall down and they would have to work hard to persuade their customers that they had a mistake but they are fixing the problem.
Just do a cursory search for the word "underfunded" in an article describing some government agency's failures and you will see this argument is quite common. There are countless examples.
Culture is usually neither better or worse. Some subsets of cultures promote one thing over another and sometimes some outsiders fetishize some of those things (i.e. non-mainstreamers might fetishize upward mobility, consumerism, etc, mainstreamers might fetishize grit, hard-knock lives, etc. Some mainstreamers believe their culture is fraudulent, as if any culture can be classified as "genuine". Only ossified cultures can be genuine. And Non mainstreamers will, naturally seek to enter the mainstream but with a wish to hold on to the familiar (ie. culture)
People with straight hair want curly and curly haired want straight hair.
I don't know anyone who works 60 hours a week and also participates in the kind of community that Oakland has. People actually know each other there! They talk to their neighbors and strangers on the street, and it brightens everyone's day to have that little touch of human connection. They go to parties and talk about things other than their jobs. They paint and draw and play music and plan events and fundraisers that are good for the community. I know techies who aspire to that kind of life, but thinking like you want to do something and actually doing it are very different things.
I work in tech, work reasonable hours, live in Oakland, and do all those things. I also have many neighbors who work in tech and outside tech (healthcare, law, skilled trades) and work reasonable hours, and do all those things.
I think doing all those things is a function of whether someone is in a particular industry. It is a function of whether one has a desire to be involved in one's community.
Having kids is a stronger predictor of community involvement if you are looking for one.
