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

San Francisco man fights eviction after rent increase from $1,800 to $8,000

abc13.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 65 posts

Re: San Francisco man fights eviction after rent increase from $1,800 to $8,000

#21

Post by BinaryIdiot »

nness wrote: post #5
toodlebunions wrote: post #2

Can San Francisco just hurry up and build some more high rises already?

It's in no ones best interest to do that, sadly.

I disagree.

- It's in the best interest of the city because it brings more people there and they get more taxes (only X amount of people can live in the city if they're not building anything new).

- It's in the best interest of the existing / new businesses because they gain access to new talent pools and they can, eventually, spend less on them.

It's really only NOT in the best interest of the properly owners who want to milk people for as much money as possible. Honestly the government just seems really corrupt or downright stupid to me. They could make SF into an amazing city but right now it's a bit of an eye sore in many ways.

Re: San Francisco man fights eviction after rent increase from $1,800 to $8,000

#22

Post by astrodust »

raldi wrote: post #10
toodlebunions wrote: post #2

Can San Francisco just hurry up and build some more high rises already?

We don't need highrises. We could cut the cost of housing in half by increasing the supply by 30% (i.e., around 110,000 units), and we could do that by converting 6% of the city's single-family houses into six-story apartment buildings. The other 94% of the houses could stay the same, and no other plot of land would need to change. No buildings taller than six stories would be necessary. Sources: http://experimental-…

Based on what I've seen, people will fight tooth and nail over any development whatsoever. This is true in any city.

Want to knock down a burned out building full of crack addicts? No way, pal, that's going to make the property taxes go up when house values aren't depressed!

Re: San Francisco man fights eviction after rent increase from $1,800 to $8,000

#23

Post by lngermani »

toodlebunions wrote: post #2

Can San Francisco just hurry up and build some more high rises already?

No. I like the way SF is and I do not want to have even worse traffic here. If you don't like the prices, there are plenty of other cities to move to.

Re: San Francisco man fights eviction after rent increase from $1,800 to $8,000

#24

Post by onion2k »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #20
mdorazio wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or people could just stop moving to SF already. Supply and demand works two ways, and it's not like the SF housing shortage is a secret.

So what do you suggest the companies do that already exist in the area when they need more employees? "Tough shit"? That likely won't work in a free market :) Finding a place to live there absolutely sucks and I hope someone eventually makes progress towards fixing it but I'm not sure telling people to stop taking good jobs is going to fly.

Employ remote workers.

Re: San Francisco man fights eviction after rent increase from $1,800 to $8,000

#25

Post by bduerst »

raldi wrote: post #10
toodlebunions wrote: post #2

Can San Francisco just hurry up and build some more high rises already?

We don't need highrises. We could cut the cost of housing in half by increasing the supply by 30% (i.e., around 110,000 units), and we could do that by converting 6% of the city's single-family houses into six-story apartment buildings. The other 94% of the houses could stay the same, and no other plot of land would need to change. No buildings taller than six stories would be necessary. Sources: http://experimental-…

The real trick is convincing the families in those 6% single-family homes to move.

You'd have an easier time rezoning old industrial areas into residential, like they did with Mission Bay.

Re: San Francisco man fights eviction after rent increase from $1,800 to $8,000

#27

Post by raldi »

jkot wrote: post #26

Could I ask why HN crowd supports rent control? It seems we are going against our own interests. 90% of flats are not on market, that makes remaining 10% very expensive.

This is a bit like asking, "So, what does everyone here think about gun control and abortion rights?"

Re: San Francisco man fights eviction after rent increase from $1,800 to $8,000

#28

Post by raldi »

thephyber wrote: post #18
cbanek wrote: post #15

I honestly wonder if anyone will pay that? If the landlord ends up having to rent it for something less, isn't this basically just using the rent to force out the tenant? Or on the other hand, maybe the landlord has someone lined up already to pay $8000 a month. Either way, this is pretty insane. That kind of insanity is what just made me leave California entirely.

I was also curious about exactly this. This unit also was listed for $8k/month and is about a block away: http://www.apartments.com/1818-mason-st-san-francisco-ca/3pq...

That's a just-remodeled 3-bedroom fully-furnished unit with high-end appliances and all utilities included -- even TV and broadband. It's hardly comparable.

Re: San Francisco man fights eviction after rent increase from $1,800 to $8,000

#29

Post by raldi »

bduerst wrote: post #25
raldi wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't need highrises. We could cut the cost of housing in half by increasing the supply by 30% (i.e., around 110,000 units), and we could do that by converting 6% of the city's single-family houses into six-story apartment buildings. The other 94% of the houses could stay the same, and no other plot of land would need to change. No buildings taller than six stories would be necessary. Sources: http://experimental-…

The real trick is convincing the families in those 6% single-family homes to move. You'd have an easier time rezoning old industrial areas into residential, like they did with Mission Bay.

> The real trick is convincing the families in those 6% single-family homes to move.

No way; that would be a piece of cake. The only reason it's not happening now is that zoning law forbids it. If that were changed, homeowners would be falling over themselves to sell their land to apartment developers; it would be a giant windfall for them. In fact, you'd have to charge a steep development fee to reduce that windfall to something modest in order to ensure that only 6% volunteer to do it.

Re: San Francisco man fights eviction after rent increase from $1,800 to $8,000

#30

Post by jkot »

raldi wrote: post #27
jkot wrote: post #26

Could I ask why HN crowd supports rent control? It seems we are going against our own interests. 90% of flats are not on market, that makes remaining 10% very expensive.

This is a bit like asking, "So, what does everyone here think about gun control and abortion rights?"

My impression is that most people on HN moved to SF recently and do not qualify for rent control. And it is not the same as your examples, I dont see a campaign that EVERYONE should get rent controlled apartment.
Post reply on HN