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

Downtown San Francisco is at a tipping-point

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 206 posts

Re: Downtown San Francisco is at a tipping-point

#171

Post by TMWNN »

ninjagoo wrote: post #90

SF City had a 2021 GDP of $230 Billion [1]. The City had a budget of $6B in 2007. [2] What do folks on here think - if the City could cut the homeless population in half for $100 Million per year, would it be worth it? How about $50 Million per year to cut it by 25%, would that be worth it? [3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_San_Francisco [3] 7800 homel…

The city of San Francisco already spends $70,000 annually per homeless person! https://abc7news.com/sf-homeless-plan-housing-all-san-franci...> More money for the Homeless-Industrial Complex is not needed. The homeless there are homeless because severe mental and addiction issues cause them to reject help, not because resources aren't available.

Re: Downtown San Francisco is at a tipping-point

#172

Post by idlewords »

tptacek wrote: post #158
jakeinspace wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s stuff you only find in cities anyway. Virtually all American cities vote Democrat. This is simply a correlation.

Why don't all American cities look in these regards like San Francisco does? They don't, so something is going on. I think there's something broken about San Francisco, and people have been suggesting that for coming up on 3 decades now: https://www.salon.com/1999/11/03/sf/

The problem post-pandemic is common to San Francisco, Portland, Los Angeles and Seattle.

Re: Downtown San Francisco is at a tipping-point

#173

Post by truckerbill »

riffraff wrote: post #71
truckerbill wrote: post #42

Housing shouldn't be an investment vehicle. It seems pretty obvious but no-one wants to give up their imaginary number. (Imaginary because most people have 1 or fewer houses and will always need to live somewhere, so they can't spend the paper value of their home). The cost of rent feeds into everything, its such a clear drain on everyone's resources (apart from landlords). If you have time to give, please think abou…

The number is not imaginary if you have kids, the idea of leaving your children some of your wealth is dear to many people, and most often they will have acquired their own place by the time you die. It is arguable that inheritance taxes should prevent accumulation of wealth, but point is, real estate survives you.

The point is they would need less wealth if they also weren't spending the second half of your life saving up for a house... And you can still give them the money

Still makes no sense to me

Re: Downtown San Francisco is at a tipping-point

#174

Post by truckerbill »

thriftwy wrote: post #77
truckerbill wrote: post #42

Housing shouldn't be an investment vehicle. It seems pretty obvious but no-one wants to give up their imaginary number. (Imaginary because most people have 1 or fewer houses and will always need to live somewhere, so they can't spend the paper value of their home). The cost of rent feeds into everything, its such a clear drain on everyone's resources (apart from landlords). If you have time to give, please think abou…

Perhaps housing was always an investment vehicle. St. Petersburg is full of 4-5 storey buildings, initially with apartments for rent, most of whose were built to provide {Surname} with a stable income in the old age.

It's really since the Reagan years that it shot through the roof. Look at the data

Re: Downtown San Francisco is at a tipping-point

#175

Post by flangola7 »

throwaway6734 wrote: post #83
flangola7 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would progressives not vote for policies that expand housing and provide direct assistance and funding to the homeless?

Policies are generally not that clean cut and clear. Many progressives already fight against policies that would increase housing (like adding overly burdensome restrictions to the development process)

> Policies are generally not that clean cut and clear.

Policy clearness is a legislative choice. If someone tries to mail a bomb to the White House the policies are very unambiguous about what happens next.

> Many progressives already fight against policies that would increase housing (like adding overly burdensome restrictions to the development process)

Liberals maybe, not progressives.

Re: Downtown San Francisco is at a tipping-point

#176

Post by flangola7 »

idlewords wrote: post #123
flangola7 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are much smaller problems than those in the comment you're replying to

That's simple whataboutism. You can always find a worse problem to deflect to.

It's not whataboutism. You implied that the deep red states have less severe social problems, which is incredibly false.

Re: Downtown San Francisco is at a tipping-point

#177

Post by truckerbill »

mattigames wrote: post #95
truckerbill wrote: post #42

Housing shouldn't be an investment vehicle. It seems pretty obvious but no-one wants to give up their imaginary number. (Imaginary because most people have 1 or fewer houses and will always need to live somewhere, so they can't spend the paper value of their home). The cost of rent feeds into everything, its such a clear drain on everyone's resources (apart from landlords). If you have time to give, please think abou…

Wealth concentration has only increased and everyone else just have less and less, at some point the situation will be dire enough that the only resource left for the majority will be violence, nothing makes a house affordable like burning it down and located in a neighborhood known for its need of firemen; landlords will say the attacks are a work of savages, but when you make it hard for people to barely survive in…

burning houses = less houses. Start by doing real politics not a junta

Re: Downtown San Francisco is at a tipping-point

#178

Post by ProfessorLayton »

onetimeusename wrote: post #167
VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #7

San Francisco and Oakland are facing combined close to $500 million budget shortfall and are requesting a federal tax payer bailout. The second major federal bailout in eight years. Oakland has one of the highest violent crime rates in the entire country and they just cut more public safety and health jobs. I can't see how anyone can look at the situation in the Bay area and not anticipate anything other than continu…

It's unfortunate this is legal. It's contrary to the whole notion of anti-federalism that experiments gone wrong in one location can receive investments to continue from the federal government. I'm sure someone will rebut this by saying that the federal government bails out everyone everywhere but that is missing my point. Not every city is suffering a budget shortfall.

While I think SF should be able to function on a much leaner budget (There's so much waste and corruption in the city), this isn't a great take.

Investing in one of the most important cities in one of the most important states in the USA is in everyone's interest.

SF contributes 6.5% of California's GDP, a state that alone would rank as the world's 5th largest economy. SF's economy is higher than several other states put together [1]. Additionally, Californians pay significantly more federal taxes than they receive in return, so they are the ones subsidizing other states' budgets.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...

Re: Downtown San Francisco is at a tipping-point

#179

Post by pandaman »

papito wrote: post #10

What amazes me is that the Valley gazillionaires are not spending their fortunes to fix their own habitat. They can just BUY the city government they want. Instead, they are shoving mountains of cash to turn the United States into some perverted libertarian fantasy, where the government is weak, paralyzed, ineffectual, and out of their way OH WAIT.

What makes you think they have not done that already and what we are seeing is not their desired state of affairs? It's not that Zuckerberg or Brin, for example, take BART or need to fend off the deranged junkie who camps in the entrance to their apartment every night.

Re: Downtown San Francisco is at a tipping-point

#180

Post by onetimeusename »

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #178
onetimeusename wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's unfortunate this is legal. It's contrary to the whole notion of anti-federalism that experiments gone wrong in one location can receive investments to continue from the federal government. I'm sure someone will rebut this by saying that the federal government bails out everyone everywhere but that is missing my point. Not every city is suffering a budget shortfall.

While I think SF should be able to function on a much leaner budget (There's so much waste and corruption in the city), this isn't a great take. Investing in one of the most important cities in one of the most important states in the USA is in everyone's interest. SF contributes 6.5% of California's GDP, a state that alone would rank as the world's 5th largest economy. SF's economy is higher than several other states…

It's not investing. The city has gotten worse in spite of a larger budget over time. The waste and corruption need a way to be corrected and budgets need to be managed; there's no incentive if bailouts have a well established path. If you want more of something, subsidize it.
Post reply on HN