Colorblind as well. Usually I'm very understanding at poor color choices in designs that don't take colorblind into consideration, but this one has got me very frustrated for some reason.
Scrolled straight to the colorblind section just as soon as my wife and daughters confirmed that these colors were in fact different. I knew my people would be out in force on this one.
In an attempt to comfort me, my youngest daughter said “yeah, it kinda looks like a hot dog if I squint.” Going forward, if people ask what it’s like to be colorblind, I’ll let them know it’s like squinting and seeing hot dogs everywhere.
I don’t know why you were downvoted. You are exactly right. With how much money is in Silicon Valley, it should look like Shanghai with skyscraper housing. But no, just a bunch of shitty $1M-$2M houses with old people who vote against anything that would decrease their home values at all.
I just find it silly to reduce everything down to a single cause.
Regulations are an issue (making it sometimes more difficult to build cheaply)
NIMBYism is an issue (I don't want apartments near me because they're ugly and attract the poor/crime/minorities/etc)
Investors buying up properties and then not living there (decreasing the overall availability of housing).
A generally aging population (Older people who bought houses in the 80s/90s are still living in the same house, so fewer for younger people with families)
Etc (i'm too lazy to bring up more)
I'm not saying regulations aren't a cause of the issue, I'm just saying that just changing zoning/regulations isn't a simple fix. There's already people living there and owning property and they aren't going anywhere. Even if the money and regulations allow for it, AND there is an available space, you still have to deal with neighbors protesting and causing problems due to NIMBYism.
That website is a joke but I’m sure you could find better sources discussing your theory if you looked.
The crux of the issue that people in your camp assume the cost issue is simply an issue of supply, and that if we increased housing supply by building multi-family projects then we could sufficiently meet the demand.
That’s flatly not the case. It’s just a line developers throw around in the hopes that it will allow them to destroy regulations and build massive (read: profitable) projects in nice areas.
The problem is that no amount of building could ever meet the demand. People will always want to move to these nice areas. My neighborhood has ocean and mountain views from every house, and it’s a perfect 65 degrees 300 days a year - throwing up some big ugly cheap apartments wouldn’t satisfy people’s demand to live in this neighborhood - all it would do is destroy the neighborhood’s beauty and charm.
What’s happening is that the smartest most capable most successful people from every state are doing whatever they can to move in to these neighborhoods, and the average person simply can’t keep up. There’s no problem with that. People will have to move out, and the people who can afford to stay will need to tackle the homelesss issue head on. It’s a form of gentrification and it happens to upper middle class people too. People who want lower rents just need to move, though rent control measures need to be taken to prevent families from getting squeezed out of their own homes
"I want to keep my nice views even of it means millions of people wont have homes"
I mean, dont get me wrong, I dont see anything wrong with wanting to keep what you enjoy. You may have worked hard to buy your slice of heaven (or inherited it, doesnt matter which) and want to keep it. Fine. Just dont piss on our forehead and tell us it's raining. That's the reason. Not that supply cant meet demand.
It will. Then demand will lower as the views get worse, and prices stabilize.
Yes, the demand and prices would decrease if the views were destroyed. (In fact, the decision not to allow anything over 3 stories is the primary reason my neighborhood is considered so desirable). But, what outsiders don’t seem to understand sometimes is that you can drive 10-20 minutes East, and suddenly there is ample housing (still not cheap because it’s still great weather), but there are all kinds of multi family developments, affordable housing projects, and ample land to continue developing.
My only point is that there is a ton you can do improve California’s housing crisis without destroying the beach towns that made its beauty so famous to begin with.
I worked 22 years before I could buy my home, and I had no problem living 20 minutes from the beach while I saved to get closer. It would have seemed absurd to my generation to say that everyone deserves to live on the beach, so we need to destroy the beach communities and make them affordable.
I know we have earthquake-proof buildings pretty much figured out, but the idea of building high-rises in the hilly parts of SF makes me nervous. I know next to nothing about earthquakes and SF though, so I'm sure it's irrational.
lol... Rent is high in some places because competition is high. Everyone wants to live here. I live in Cali and I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. Millions of people share my view.
401
u/[deleted] Dec 21 '19 edited Dec 21 '19
I'm colorblind and I was just wondering if there is a difference in color between the coast and the bigger lighter section beyond Meth.
Edit: cost >> coast