@MrDean I think your comment illustrates my frustrations with the current state of affairs in the Bay Area. I don't think that everything needs to be mutually exclusive, though perhaps I am being naive here. I don't see why we couldn't commit to building more rental stock in SF, and in the Bay Area in general around public transportation while working simultaneously to reform the Ellis Act and protect seniors/vulnerable people from eviction, or at least use some of the housing stock the city government holds as a safety net for these groups should eviction occur.
@NoName I would have to disagree. Yes, SF is an odd mix of waterfront landfill + bedrock in earthquake territory, and on top of that the city is only 7x7 miles and that means housing concerns here are particular. However, it's essentially a glorified suburb currently and I think all communities here could benefit from increased density. What that density looks like, and how's it's developed is another question - especially so we can avoid erasing neighborhoods like the Western Addition debacle that removed so many african americans from SF. I do believe that those social aspects could be respected while allowing for greater density. At least then people who get Ellis Act evicted would have a place within the city to move to once losing a rent controlled space.
@siege91 Agreed. It's definitely not permits n junk, it's the fact that the NIMBY people who live here made it impossible to develop high density housing. They say shit like "protect our waterfront," but really they mean "protect my multimillion dollar condo view."
@Worgchef Totally understood, though I don't mean to imply that you wouldn't be around at all. I'm certain both parents with full time jobs and those who can stay home have parental relationships with their kids. I'm more curious about people's thought process as to if they ever want to stay home, and when. Honestly I am freaked out by babies/toddlers (hello! this is why I am just an aunt now and have no kids), so the idea of being more deeply involved with older children seems like more fun personally.
@jmdj I think that depends on the workplace. At one of my jobs I felt like parents were constantly given a pass to leave work early, often. A kid would be sick, or they needed to attend a ballgame, etc etc. I think that flexibility is great, but it should be afforded to all workers, given it's something important to you. Eventually it made me really grumpy because it felt like a benefit only they got because it was taken advantage of so much, and I maybe lied about family stuff to get off early once in a while too. Hopefully people can find the right workplace where it's cool to tell your boss that you are the captain of your tennis or dodgeball or whatever team and you need to leave early every once in a while, and have them respect that even though it's not a kid related reason.
@allison , @garysixpack , @aconite An observation by a non-child-having person: if I were to have kids, I'd probably want to be around more during the ages 8-15 when schoolwork really ramps up and kids start to (maybe) get into trouble. It seems like taking yourself out of the workplace while your kid is super young is not optimal vs slightly later in their development - given of course you can afford quality childcare. Again, totally based on my personal non kid experience, but I would feel like I could have a bigger impact on a child's development/personality/school success between 8-15 vs 0-4/kindergarden age. I'm very curious what real parents think about this though. I'm terrified of taking myself out of the workplace as a young-ish woman and the havoc that would wreak on my career trajectory.
@Eric18 Exactly! I forget the exact prop number, I believe it was prop B or C, but it reversed a 7 year process to build housing on the Embaracdero. Whether or not you were in favor of this new condo/residential development on the SF waterfront, you have to remark how ridiculous it was that after following 7 yrs of procedure to get this project off the ground it was stopped by a city wide proposition. NIMBY indeed.
@Allison @susan tidebeck The commute from SF to Mountain View can be pretty gnarly depending on traffic. I had a 10am meeting at Google yesterday, I left SF in a car at 8am, dropped off my husband on the way and didn't make it to Google's campus until 9:50. From where I live I could have taken a MUNI bus to Cal Train for $2 and then paid $10-$12 per direction to get to Mountain View (and then of course hopped on another bus or took a taxi to get to the campus), and it would have taken at least the same amount of time, if not more. I'm glad to see that the city is charging for use of the stops, but I also don't think that the Google, Facebook, EA, etc. buses are the problem. In fact I think they do a great deal to keep cars off the road and make the commute to the South Bay easier to on everyone. What really drives me nuts is that the city of San Francisco offers huge tax breaks to companies like Square and Twitter to have their offices downtown, but they won't offer tax breaks to incentivize builders to make low and middle income housing. So we end up with people getting evicted to build luxury million dollar condos. Anyhoo, that was tl;dr, but just my impression as a SF resident.
This reminds me of this amazing video a cartoonist I love made about Ash Ketchum teaching Pikachu how to disguise a fart. I know, that sounds just..AMAZING WATCH IT, IT IS THE BEST I SWEAR! http://natazilla.tumblr.com/post/11074050241/this-is-that-thing-i-started-drawing-a-long-time
@aetataureate hahaha, that is a brilliant idea! So evil, I love it.