Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

One-third of SF Bay Area residents hope to leave soon, poll finds

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 328 posts

Re: One-third of SF Bay Area residents hope to leave soon, poll finds

#221

Post by throwaway6497 »

shimon wrote: post #176
throwaway6497 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I admit this comment might be insensitive and will probably ruffle the feathers of many but I was purely thinking from the point of view of economic impact and who drive(s) the innovation engine here. VCs, People who made it in tech, hungry (for success) people who want to make it in tech, and senior product and engineering people who can build solid products (not charlatans or imposters) have no reason to leave SV.…

Zoom out - you're missing the huge demographic risk. The next generation of people who will become top engineers, founders, etc. are facing tougher tradeoffs between standard of living and access to SV's social and business networks. It's not only the risk that the current drivers will leave but that the new drivers will just go elsewhere.

For 2015/16, new college grads at good companies total comp is in the range $120-180K, and they definitely have access to good social networks within the company and outside. Is there a large group of next generation people I am missing?

Re: One-third of SF Bay Area residents hope to leave soon, poll finds

#222

Post by mywittyname »

wahsd wrote: post #142
krstck wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Denver has so many wonderful things, but this undercurrent of "I hate all the new people" is so gross. I've encountered it in situations where I'm literally handing money over to someone who is bitching about people moving here.

Let me guess; you are one of those new people and are resentful that people you are freeloading and mooching off of are resentful that you are destroying the community and society they built over time. Its the same thing in Austin, even though Austin has really be fully deconstructed at this point and it is nothing like the nice place it once was. It's become ever more exclusive, ever more restricted, ever more douch…

Freeloaders & moochers are making everything more exclusive, expensive and pretentious?

How does that work? More importantly, if they have it so nice, why don't get what you're due and start freeloading?

Re: One-third of SF Bay Area residents hope to leave soon, poll finds

#223

Post by AdrianB1 »

ericd wrote: post #114
davidw wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would make it a less interesting investment is if there were a credible threat to add enough supply to devalue it. That's generally how markets keep prices regulated: if they go up enough, more people jump in to producing the good. That mechanism is severely broken in the Bay Area, among other popular places in the US.

Alternatively, repealing Prop 13, so that property taxes rise with the value. Or increasing property taxes as you get more homes. Both of these would decrease housing prices significantly.

Higher taxes is not enough. Taxing property means you confiscate it piece by piece, the owner will have to pay or lose it, but given enough time the owner will pay more than the value of the property. Why go that slow and not go for it, confiscate all properties and be happy with it? You can always follow examples from the likes of North Korea. Just in case you don't get it: you can ask for taxes when you provide services, not when you vote to raise taxes. Not sure what are more expensive services the empty Chinese-owned houses require to tax for it. And blaming Chinese investment is just a straw man: if all the houses would be occupied by pure-breed white Caucasian Americans (that's a joke) who would you blame, Martians?

Re: One-third of SF Bay Area residents hope to leave soon, poll finds

#224

Post by Touche »

muzz wrote: post #204
davidw wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the extreme, these things can hold a lot of people without too much land: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyscraper But you don't really need those in most places. Simply building 'in' more and up 2/3/4 stories would add a ton of housing in much of the bay area.

Those are very expensive to build, approaching $1000/sqft. Also require utilities, transit, and other city services (schools, police, fire, etc).

There isn't a cheap way out of SF's situation.

> Also require utilities, transit, and other city services (schools, police, fire, etc).

High rises don't require those things. People require those things.

Re: One-third of SF Bay Area residents hope to leave soon, poll finds

#225

Post by dpark »

davidw wrote: post #216
dpark wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I walked across most of Rome with my second-trimester wife many times on our vacation there a couple of years ago. It's really not that spread out. What cities in Italy are less spread out? Naples, I guess. Any others? I agree that Rome is not really cheap. But I don't think it's fair to point to Italy as an example of affordable housing driven by higher density when it's not more dense. Especially since density actu…

I'm guessing you walked across the city center, not 'Rome', which is fairly large: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Rome,+Italy/@41.9036094,12...

Looking at the map, we probably didn't cover as much as I thought.

Regardless, if Rome is "spread out", it's not dense. If Rome, being among the densest of Italian cities, not dense, then neither is Italy.

Re: One-third of SF Bay Area residents hope to leave soon, poll finds

#226

Post by dragonwriter »

Touche wrote: post #224
muzz wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are very expensive to build, approaching $1000/sqft. Also require utilities, transit, and other city services (schools, police, fire, etc).

There isn't a cheap way out of SF's situation. > Also require utilities, transit, and other city services (schools, police, fire, etc). High rises don't require those things. People require those things.

For some of them, the requirements (for the same number of people and the same overall outcomes) increase with density, so, in a sense, high-rises (or other arrangements which increase density) do require them.

Re: One-third of SF Bay Area residents hope to leave soon, poll finds

#227

Post by windlep »

rtsuk wrote: post #186
windlep wrote: post #5

I'm sure the fact that there's an increasing trend of empty Chinese investment properties isn't helping. I grew up in Cupertino, and when I visit my parents there, I'm rather shocked at how downhill the neighborhood has gone in parts. It's crazy that these old 70's tract homes go for 1.5 million. Even more insane is that they're bought and then left empty to go downhill. Literally broken windows and paint falling off…

I live in Cupertino, near DeAnza college and the Garden Gate elementary school, and I see no sign of broken windows or peeling paint. The prices are crazy. I'm not sure what developments you are referring to, but the Main Street and Hills developments are running shuttle buses to caltrain. The one by the Oaks shopping center certainly seemed ill-advised, but it got shut down by the city council.

The neighborhood around Kennedy Jr High School and Monta Vista High School. Many houses over the past decade became mini-mansions for awhile, but the recent trend seems to be ignoring basic house maintenance.

I didn't mean to imply there were lots of houses like this, but even two houses kept up poorly on a single street in this area is a relatively new thing.

Re: One-third of SF Bay Area residents hope to leave soon, poll finds

#228

Post by dragonwriter »

davidw wrote: post #184
muzz wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What technology are you referring to?

At the extreme, these things can hold a lot of people without too much land: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyscraper But you don't really need those in most places. Simply building 'in' more and up 2/3/4 stories would add a ton of housing in much of the bay area.

> At the extreme, these things can hold a lot of people without too much land:

They can hold a lot of people without too much land, but they don't reduce the land requirements for transporting goods and supplies to and waste products away from those people.

Sure, you can hold a lot more people in San Francisco if you fill the city with high-rises, but that's not going to, e.g., suddenly give the city a greater supply of water to support that population, or a greater ability to handle the solid waste produced by that population.

Re: One-third of SF Bay Area residents hope to leave soon, poll finds

#229

Post by jandrese »

muzz wrote: post #213
jandrese wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can report it all they like. The city (or HOA) will send a letter to the homeowner demanding that they fix it. If the don't fix it in a few years then they'll send a second letter or may go as far as to take a lien out on the property. What doesn't happen is that the window gets fixed.

No, it's not "a few years". Cities act very quickly on this since broken windows make the dwelling open to all sorts of problems like animals coming in, people coming in (trespass, drug den, etc).

It was 3 years in my case, and they were only fixed because the house was finally foreclosed and sold to someone else. Critters had definitely moved in, and there was lots of water damage too. It was a real problem for me because it was a townhouse attached to mine. That was the last time I ever owned an attached dwelling.

Re: One-third of SF Bay Area residents hope to leave soon, poll finds

#230

Post by Touche »

dragonwriter wrote: post #226
Touche wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn't a cheap way out of SF's situation. > Also require utilities, transit, and other city services (schools, police, fire, etc). High rises don't require those things. People require those things.

For some of them, the requirements (for the same number of people and the same overall outcomes) increase with density, so, in a sense, high-rises (or other arrangements which increase density) do require them.

I didn't state my point well enough; people are the driving factor here. The density is caused by people wanting to move to SF. High rises are a way to deal with the reality, not providing housing isn't going to solve the problem in any way people are going to be happy with.
Post reply on HN