The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups • Hacker News Board

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#251

Post by tnecniv » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 5:13 PM UTC

chadgeidel wrote: post #196

johan_larson wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's time for some soft vigilante action. Start mailing people brochures about how Denver, Seattle, Portland and Austin are really really nice places. And enclose a bullet.

Denverite here. It's not Silicon Valley, but rents and housing are pretty out of control here too. Additionally it's still very car-centric. Lots of opportunity though. I really have no idea what the "enclose a bullet" part means.

He means put a bullet in the envelope as some vague threat.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#252

Post by vedanta » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 5:15 PM UTC

epicureanideal wrote: post #193

vedanta wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are also YIMBY orgs almost everywhere. The south bay YIMBY twitter account has updates on what you can do as well. From following the YIMBY movement ( http://www.slate.com/articles/business/metropolis/2017/06/yi... ) it's hard to not take the YIMBY position. More needs to be built, but we can have ~10% BMR requirements as ways of increasing diversity in a neighborhood and preserving some local control/culture.…

BMR is a scam in my opinion. It just prevents wages rising as they would naturally need to if housing became increasingly unaffordable to the point that workers can't even commute in. It recruits people into a program of lucky allocation rather than working for more. Busy or I'd write more. Look how rent control turned out.

I don't think it's a scam. I would agree on rent control, but I think that has it's uses too in the current rental market.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#253

Post by pj_mukh » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 5:16 PM UTC

narrator wrote: post #117

kevinburke wrote: post #6

Both top-level comments have mentioned housing prices. I grew up in the Bay Area and want to stay here and I am trying to work to change policy to help build more housing. Unfortunately due to law, bad policy and NIMBY's the market is not going to solve this problem on its own, without political change rents and housing prices will keep increasing. Here are some political actions you can take to help: - call your Sta…

Why does everyone have to squeeze into San Francisco and the peninsula? Can't you tech workers gentrify West Oakland at least? Guess a few street thugs are a force more powerful than million dollar home prices. I bet those guys are really proud of the chaos they create that forces all of you to avoid their neighborhoods.

Oakland...takes a harder line against gentrification than most other parts of the Bay [1].

[1] http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/07/oakland-blaze-looks-su...

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#254

Post by dang » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 5:17 PM UTC

nailer wrote: post #115

This is excellent opportunity for anyone who wants investment from west coast VCs but doesn't want to deal with San Francisco, Oakland or the bay area. San Francisco frequently has human feces on the sidewalk in many areas right near the city center, high housing prices and a combination of startup bros and angry hard left outrage culture folk. The bay area is a cultureless void and Oakland is still dangerous. Better…

> The bay area is a cultureless void

Would you please not post slurs like this here? It's pure flamebait and leads to worse.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#255

Post by davidw » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 5:19 PM UTC

kevinburke wrote: post #202

johan_larson wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's time for some soft vigilante action. Start mailing people brochures about how Denver, Seattle, Portland and Austin are really really nice places. And enclose a bullet.

Oregon has been putting commercials on SFBA airwaves saying "move here."

And housing is getting expensive here too.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#256

Post by abritinthebay » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 5:19 PM UTC

timr wrote: post #80

pcwalton wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The simple fact is that there are a lot of people who need to live in the Bay Area. Wishing people would just leave is what the NIMBY organizations have been trying for decades. It doesn't work, and it inflicts undue hardship on everyone who wasn't one of the lucky ones who bought in early. The only thing that does work is confronting the fact that a lot of people need to live here and encouraging housing supply to m…

"Wishing people would just leave is what the NIMBY organizations have been trying for decades." ...and yet, this crisis is only about 5 years old. Between 2008 and 2012, San Francisco rents were going down , not up. San Francisco's population declined in the 1980s. Say what you will about construction rates, but this is an acute housing crisis, brought on by an asset bubble, instigated by historically low interest ra…

5 years? LOL

It’s been a problem since the 90s but it eases off for a year or 3 every recession.

Same deal here - it’s been crap for decades but the 2008 crash deflated the balooon a little for a while.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#257

Post by wbl » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 5:20 PM UTC

abalone wrote: post #166

vedanta wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are also YIMBY orgs almost everywhere. The south bay YIMBY twitter account has updates on what you can do as well. From following the YIMBY movement ( http://www.slate.com/articles/business/metropolis/2017/06/yi... ) it's hard to not take the YIMBY position. More needs to be built, but we can have ~10% BMR requirements as ways of increasing diversity in a neighborhood and preserving some local control/culture.…

10% is way low. SF has been negotiating for 25% and up.[1] BMR isn't just about culture and diversity. It's about teachers and service industry workers and everyone a functioning city needs. The gap is so large between market rate and affordability, and there are so many richer people still wanting to move into SF, that it is likely wishful thinking that market rate development will be "enough" to solve the problem.…

Have you read the Obama administration's report on affordability of housing, or the UC Berkeley displacement report? Both show MR development has a protective effect on displacement.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#258

Post by makr17 » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 5:20 PM UTC

kcanini wrote: post #216

santaclaus wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, while we are on BART gripes: what is the deal with people trying to squeeze their way upstream and board the cars before everyone has fully detrained? In NYC peeps form little ad-hoc queues to the left and right of the doors, let the exiters exit, then enter in two quick streams. In the Bay, I feel like MFing Moses trying to part the sea when exiting a train. Don't even get me started on the weird station lines t…

Seems like adding these stickers would be useful: http://thesource.metro.net/2013/02/13/new-platform-decals-re...

You'd think, but at crowded platfroms people are still standing right in the middle of the yellow, and don't budge when the train arrives. :-(

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#259

Post by stevenwoo » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 5:23 PM UTC

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #200

nemonemo wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) I believe so. Once Google goes into Diridon, enough young people would gather around the station, businesses would also gather, higher-density buildings will go up, start ups will start to gather as well. 2) Cupertino is close enough to Stanford and Moffett, which were the two centers of initial Silicon Valley. Morgan Hill and Brentwood are quite far. Still, its population and real estate markets will grow. 3) Hig…

Cupertino is so ridiculously boring that no one wants to live there though.

Boring is of course personal opinion ( the prominent Taco Bell behind the welcome to Cupertino sign on Stevens Creek ...) but the latter part of your statement is not supported by local housing/rental price/availability.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#260

Post by s73ver » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 5:23 PM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #134

vedanta wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nevada is too different, the combination of non-enforceable non-competes and the nice weather can be duplicated elsewhere in CA easiest, and this is happening. If your state has big corporate HQs forget about getting non-enforceable non-competes.

No one is forcing you as a company to make employees sign a non-compete, enforceable or otherwise. I've generally lived in states where non-competes are enforceable and I've signed exactly one.

I think they're speaking from the perspective of founders who, until they start the company, do have day jobs somewhere. In California, there's no issue, but in other states with enforceable non-competes, that can be a pretty big hinderance to starting the company.