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

S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 465 posts

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#431

Post by nobodyandproud »

nineplay wrote: post #293
nobodyandproud wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anger aside (directed more at liberals or NIMBYs?), California and San Francisco is limiting its potential. Wealth of the area is being strangled by a magnitude. As an individual owner, however, it’s irrational to not fight. So how would you incentivize growth? It can be done, but I do think the lawmakers will have to be creative about it.

> Wealth of the area is being strangled by a magnitude How so?

For one, real estate value isn’t fixed.

A lot of two small houses can made into a condo that serves eight families or more (a very tiny condo).

The values of those eight condos isn’t equal to the two houses; the total value will be eventually be quite higher yet individually be more affordable.

That’s just the start. Let’s suppose 1000 single family homes were converted into a 4000 units.

The construction alone means economic activity, though that’s temporary.

3000 more families means more to that much more demand for services in the long term. Which ripples into more demand for service jobs, generating a demand for labor.

More incoming labor means more people, which means more construction activity due to demand.

Rinse and repeat.

San Francisco is missing out however, because the window of opportunity is passing; that is, if it hasn’t already passed.

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#432

Post by deltaonefour »

themitigating wrote: post #410
deltaonefour wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No he called you a lying fuck because he thinks you're not being honest. I don't think you're lying. But most definitely what he says about liberal democrats is true. https://youtu.be/hNDgcjVGHIw Attacking conservatives was just poor taste and off topic. The reaction you got was well deserved because you tried to give something neutral a political bent.

1. First rule of comments on Hackernews is "be kind". My statement didn't attack any single user on this site. If the user disagreed with me he can simply state that with a counter argument. 2. Conservative pundits have made remarks implying politics/a political party are to blame. I don't think it's politically neutral and that's what I was commenting on. Examples below where the population decline is discussed. Fox…

It is an attack. It's blaming a situation based off of someones politics. People are conservatives too and when they are talked about like that, they feel blamed or almost like they're being observed like creatures in a zoo.

The person who responded to you interpreted that way and to me it also reads that way. Simply bringing up politics is often an attack and depending on the context it may be relevant, but in this case I don't see any relevancy. Lots of people hate SF who lived there and this is independent of the media.

Even Fox news doesn't always report lies. Sure they have strong bias and tend to twist reality and exaggerate situations but their objective is political, not to simply just "lie." If a story aligns with their politics then when they report it, it's basically reporting the truth.

In this case the whole communism thing is an exaggeration, but it is an aspect of the truth that lots of people hate SF.

There's just no need bring up Fox or the conservative media here. Better to offer your opinion on the matter because a good number of people who hate SF are actually liberal and moderate as well.

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#433

Post by adam_arthur »

ghaff wrote: post #175
adam_arthur wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that work from office is the primary reason SF became so expensive in the first place, yes. How can SF home prices be justified vs SD or LA in a remote work world?

>How can SF home prices be justified vs SD or LA in a remote work world? I don't live in SF or even in a city but, in the abstract, I'd pick SF from that triplet. LA is complete sprawl and a little bit of SoCal beaches goes a long way for me. And San Diego is nice enough but sort of soulless. I like the SF climate even when summer is the coldest winter you ever spent--and there are great recreational options and scen…

It's not really about preferring SF, but preferring it at twice the home price (or whatever the actual gap is). It's hard to justify that if not forced to live there for work

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#434

Post by themitigating »

DragonStrength wrote: post #414
inferiorhuman wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've definitely thought about finally leaving the Bay Area, previously I'd written off a lot of places because I want to be close to the coast and I love the relatively mild weather. More recently I ended up talking with a park ranger about life out here (he's from Truckee). He was real attracted to the Oregon coast but aghast at the white supremacy issues that are still ripe up there. There's always a catch. Now? Po…

Yes, you’re certainly wrestling with a different circumstance than many others, if not most, if you’re from the area. For someone from a place most people from the Bay Area would never deign to visit, I’m more than happy to go back and do the hard work to make it better. Work politicians and voters in California are incapable and unwilling to do.

What does being "woke" have to do with this situation?

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#435

Post by nobodyandproud »

heiniunai wrote: post #352
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

San Francisco is already the second most densely populated city in the USA (the first being NYC). SF is actually already slightly more densely populated than Tokyo, which many like to tout as a mecha for de-regulated zoning.

With around 6,300 people per km2, "it is similar in terms of population density to San Francisco. In Tokyo’s 23 wards, however, the density is 15,381 people per km2, making it 50% higher than New York City as a whole." https://japanpropertycentral.com/2021/12/housing-in-tokyo-is... The 23 wards of Tokyo are 5 times the land area of SF city proper.

Let’s get in the full context:

>Nakano ward’s density of 21,956/km2, does rank a little closer to Manhattan (around 28,000/km2).

NYC is quite large. Huge areas of the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island have low-risers or single family homes.

Which if course brings the average down.

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#436

Post by themitigating »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #207
themitigating wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What evidence do you have that the city was better 20 to 30 years ago?

There is no lack of evidence. There are thousands of video records taken in San Fran 25-30 years ago. You won't see a city filled with vagrants and human feces. You won't see trash filled-streets or sidewalks lined with makeshift shelters. It certainly wasn't perfect (no city is) but it wasn't the open sewer it is today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0t9ogfCI3E

This video only shows me what it looked like at a point in time years ago. It's not a comparison to the current situation.

Crime is at historic lows for both property and assault in 2020. I know it went in 2021 but not enough to make the data show San Francisco is worse now than in the 80s, 70s , or 60s.

https://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#437

Post by jethro_tell »

jjav wrote: post #395
Schnitz wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Homeowners are a reliable political cohort, they tend to organize quickly as soon as any issues are on the agenda that might affect the value of their land and they will reliably push for whatever increases land values. They show up at city hall to make sure they are at least the loudest group on the issue. Homeowners are also diligent voters. You’ll need more than 50% of people to be renters to counter this, unless…

> Homeowners are a reliable political cohort, they tend to organize quickly as soon as any issues are on the agenda that might affect the value of their land and they will reliably push for whatever increases land values. I feel like this is a myth, do you have research to back this? As a 20+ year home owner, I've never been asked to support anything to increase land/housing value (not that I'd want to, since that me…

It never really gets on the ballot around here. But it is certainly brought up in counsel debates and people usually vote for that by proxy through the counsel positions.

There are also always hearings around higher density zoning and people turn out tooth and nail to oppose those at counsel meetings. On thing that is interesting, is people generally like the idea of more housing but when you say, 'We're going to add these 4 blocks near your house to the high density core', either people like it less or the people who like it less come out in droves and throw a fit.

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#438

Post by ido »

wellthatsawrap1 wrote: post #412
ido wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming you’re moving long-term, aren’t you worried climate change is going to make Florida (especially coastal southern Florida) a lot less attractive?

Yes climate change. It's going to be bad. Please don't move to Florida

You joke, and I'm sure for some people (who don't really plan to stay anywhere for very long, especially if single & childless) it doesn't matter. But I'm 39 and have little kids. I'd like to stay where I settled for the rest of my life at this point (which may still be another 50+ years).

Would you bet on climate change not making Miami a lot less ideal place to live in by the time you're old?

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#439

Post by DragonStrength »

themitigating wrote: post #434
DragonStrength wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you’re certainly wrestling with a different circumstance than many others, if not most, if you’re from the area. For someone from a place most people from the Bay Area would never deign to visit, I’m more than happy to go back and do the hard work to make it better. Work politicians and voters in California are incapable and unwilling to do.

What does being "woke" have to do with this situation?

I think you replied to the wrong person because neither I nor the parent said anything about "woke."

Re: S.F. population fell 6.3%, most in nation, to lowest level since 2010

#440

Post by themitigating »

deltaonefour wrote: post #432
themitigating wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. First rule of comments on Hackernews is "be kind". My statement didn't attack any single user on this site. If the user disagreed with me he can simply state that with a counter argument. 2. Conservative pundits have made remarks implying politics/a political party are to blame. I don't think it's politically neutral and that's what I was commenting on. Examples below where the population decline is discussed. Fox…

It is an attack. It's blaming a situation based off of someones politics. People are conservatives too and when they are talked about like that, they feel blamed or almost like they're being observed like creatures in a zoo. The person who responded to you interpreted that way and to me it also reads that way. Simply bringing up politics is often an attack and depending on the context it may be relevant, but in this…

In my opinion some conservative pundants hate sf not because of the conditions but because of who runs the government and who lives there

And I think bringing up Foxnews is worth it because they push a narrative about issues in California less on numbers and more on emotion. They repeat the same accussations or statements without data so often people take it as fact now. For example "California is a failed state "

Post reply on HN