701–710 of 754 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
30 minutes won't take you from the river to North Loop. And even Redbud is slow in the opposite direction.
north-south commute? You must be new here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> makes enough to afford renting a 1bed apartment in a good area In most cities in the US this is not the definition of wealthy or even well off. living with roommates to save 10K a year does sound like one step above poverty.
When I lived in the bay area, lots of my friends lived in shared accommodation because they actually liked living with other people. Saving money was a side effect. They usually bought a place when they got married or not long after. That's not poverty.
Said with zero irony, as if this is the worst thing ever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>we've had the opposite problem: lots of highly paid tech firms moving into SF. Quite the problem ... the kind of problem that multitudes of cities and regions in the world are desperately trying to recreate. >This has changed the nature of San Francisco in a way that many dislike, including me. This is where progressives don't live up to their name. The nature of cities is constant change. Meanwhile the activists ar…
I see nothing in the OP's post that suggests that they're against re-zoning, building high density housing, or other measures to remove barriers against cheaper housing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Rents will drop if you increase density ... but that would mean building higher density housing and thereby accepting that the character of cities and neighborhoods change. I keep hearing proponents of strict exclusionary zoning laws arguing that they don't like the risk of having the value of their investment decrease because of this. SF will be a great example of how change happens weather you like it or not and a…
I have never seen rents drop due to high density. If anything, rents are cheaper in sparsely populated areas. Examples abound. Rents won’t become cheaper if we build more. However, building more will certainly mean more property taxes for the government. San Francisco gets several millions of dollars to spend from which they spend a measly amount on the homeless(and that’s over 350 million/annum)..where is the rest?…
You think housing is somehow immune to supply and demand? If that's the case, you can't claim rents are rising due to increase demand from young professionals. Which then raises the question: "What does affect rental prices?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you want rent to go down, allow more building. End of story. There's actually nothing else to it. There's actually another solution, but people don't talk about it: reduce demand. Break some windows. Have a few organized robbery parties. Hold monthly "Stabby Sundays" where you just stab people randomly. That'll drive down demand, and prices will drop like a rock. Obviously, I'm joking. Building more houses is th…
I would argue the solution is build a lot of affordable housing. I've noticed in Berlin, a lot of new development follows a pattern: small footprint apartments with luxury amenities. This is great if you're a landlord, and you want to maximize the revenue of your property. But it's terrible if you're just looking for a safe, clean place to live, and you end up paying double the rent because luxury units are the only…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Rents will drop if you increase density ... but that would mean building higher density housing and thereby accepting that the character of cities and neighborhoods change. I keep hearing proponents of strict exclusionary zoning laws arguing that they don't like the risk of having the value of their investment decrease because of this. SF will be a great example of how change happens weather you like it or not and a…
I have never seen rents drop due to high density. If anything, rents are cheaper in sparsely populated areas. Examples abound. Rents won’t become cheaper if we build more. However, building more will certainly mean more property taxes for the government. San Francisco gets several millions of dollars to spend from which they spend a measly amount on the homeless(and that’s over 350 million/annum)..where is the rest?…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Concentration of market power and lack of risk capital, not regulation, is the primary inhibitor to normal people starting businesses.
If you could open up a "food truck" on the weekends with a Walmart camp stove and a trip to Costco you'd eliminate the concentration fo market power and lack of risk capital as problems.
Those that don't will expect a steep discount.
Meanwhile those people who take the risk and it doesn't work out will still have bills and rent to pay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fort Worth is in the same state, almost the same population, growing just as fast, and has similar taxes. Yet Fort Worth doesn’t have the visible homeless problem that Austin and San Francisco do.
This is partly because the private security force employed by the wealthy Bass brothers forcefully (and sometimes violently) discourage the homeless from existing in downtown Fort Worth, especially the Sundance Square area. I used to work downtown (Oil & Gas Commerce building) and became friends with the night-shift security guard, who told some really shocking stories about how the Bass goons would drag the homeless…
There is NO WAY Sundance Security would do that. I personally know the security team members and how professionally they are trained, and I know the Basses and how they operate.
That's a horrible thing to say. And it is sad that you or anyone would actually believe it.
It's a tall tale that a late shift guard might enjoy telling, but it isn't the truth.