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

Downtown San Francisco Luxury Apartment Tower Loses Half Its Value

sfstandard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 52 posts

Re: Downtown San Francisco Luxury Apartment Tower Loses Half Its Value

#41

Post by Dig1t »

Am4TIfIsER0ppos wrote: post #33
iancmceachern wrote: post #6

Check out this building in SOMA, it was finished, sat empty waiting for permits for 2 years because the City sucks, and during that time the condo market crashed and so now the builder had to hand it back to the lender. Full brand new condo building one block from Oracle Park with like 24 luxury condos in it for 16 mil now: https://sfstandard.com/2023/08/16/brand-new-san-francisco-co...

They built without permits? And the bank just gets to take it back rather than the govt requiring demolition?

Are you saying that it’s logical, or sane, to demolish a brand new building, built to spec, because the bureaucratic stamps took place out of order?

Re: Downtown San Francisco Luxury Apartment Tower Loses Half Its Value

#42

Post by addicted »

aurareturn wrote: post #37
api wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

San Francisco has long struck me as the worst run major city in the US. Not just incompetent but almost malicious. Lots of right wingers like to make it a right/left thing but no, I just think SF seems to be it’s own special snowflake. There are plenty of cities and towns run by left wing types that are much better run in every way. The impression I get is of a rent extraction cartel that somehow pretends to be super…

The rental market didn’t cause the homelessness. Most homeless people weren’t renting in SF before they got homeless. These are the people who just gave up in leave. Has nothing to do with rent prices or housing prices. Truth is, SF is attractive to homeless people because it has nice weather all year round and the politicians tolerate them.

Unfortunately your “truth” is almost certainly false. Actual research shows the majority of homelessness in CA is a result of unaffordable housing and there is no mass migration of homeless to CA (thst also doesn’t make sense…with not even enough money to afford a house in a city where you may have connections and at least know the lay of the land, why would you move to a significantly more expensive city where you know no one and don’t know anything about it…and even if you think the weather is such a draw, then why are there any homeless in SF? Why haven’t they all moved to LA?).

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2023/06/425646/california-statewid...

> Contrary to myths of homeless migration, most were Californians: 90% of participants lost their last housing in California and 75% of participants live in the same county as where they were last housed.

> The study found that for most of the participants, the cost of housing had simply become unsustainable. Participants reported a median monthly household income of $960 in the six months prior to their homelessness, and most believed that either rental subsidies or one-time financial help would have prevented their homelessness.

Re: Downtown San Francisco Luxury Apartment Tower Loses Half Its Value

#43

Post by cswhnjidd »

aurareturn wrote: post #37
api wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

San Francisco has long struck me as the worst run major city in the US. Not just incompetent but almost malicious. Lots of right wingers like to make it a right/left thing but no, I just think SF seems to be it’s own special snowflake. There are plenty of cities and towns run by left wing types that are much better run in every way. The impression I get is of a rent extraction cartel that somehow pretends to be super…

The rental market didn’t cause the homelessness. Most homeless people weren’t renting in SF before they got homeless. These are the people who just gave up in leave. Has nothing to do with rent prices or housing prices. Truth is, SF is attractive to homeless people because it has nice weather all year round and the politicians tolerate them.

How do you know that? Research usually suggests that the most important factor in homelessness is unaffordable housing.

Re: Downtown San Francisco Luxury Apartment Tower Loses Half Its Value

#44

Post by api »

addicted wrote: post #42
aurareturn wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rental market didn’t cause the homelessness. Most homeless people weren’t renting in SF before they got homeless. These are the people who just gave up in leave. Has nothing to do with rent prices or housing prices. Truth is, SF is attractive to homeless people because it has nice weather all year round and the politicians tolerate them.

Unfortunately your “truth” is almost certainly false. Actual research shows the majority of homelessness in CA is a result of unaffordable housing and there is no mass migration of homeless to CA (thst also doesn’t make sense…with not even enough money to afford a house in a city where you may have connections and at least know the lay of the land, why would you move to a significantly more expensive city where you k…

You mean there’s a connection between not enough housing and homelessness? I dunno isn’t that pretty far fetched…?

/s

Re: Downtown San Francisco Luxury Apartment Tower Loses Half Its Value

#45

Post by wesapien »

cswhnjidd wrote: post #43
aurareturn wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rental market didn’t cause the homelessness. Most homeless people weren’t renting in SF before they got homeless. These are the people who just gave up in leave. Has nothing to do with rent prices or housing prices. Truth is, SF is attractive to homeless people because it has nice weather all year round and the politicians tolerate them.

How do you know that? Research usually suggests that the most important factor in homelessness is unaffordable housing.

It's a well known fact homeless people come and stay in California for the mild weather. A lot of homeless are drug addicts and mental health issues. They can't hold down a job being that way. Normal people would just move or leave.

Re: Downtown San Francisco Luxury Apartment Tower Loses Half Its Value

#46

Post by addicted »

wesapien wrote: post #45
cswhnjidd wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know that? Research usually suggests that the most important factor in homelessness is unaffordable housing.

It's a well known fact homeless people come and stay in California for the mild weather. A lot of homeless are drug addicts and mental health issues. They can't hold down a job being that way. Normal people would just move or leave.

Why are they coming to SF and not all going to LA then?

Of course all the research (admittedly limited, but there is no research showing this “well known fact”) this well know fact is just false.

Re: Downtown San Francisco Luxury Apartment Tower Loses Half Its Value

#47

Post by wesapien »

addicted wrote: post #46
wesapien wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a well known fact homeless people come and stay in California for the mild weather. A lot of homeless are drug addicts and mental health issues. They can't hold down a job being that way. Normal people would just move or leave.

Why are they coming to SF and not all going to LA then? Of course all the research (admittedly limited, but there is no research showing this “well known fact”) this well know fact is just false.

Progressive capture of most institutions makes a lot of research questionable in this particular world of ideas.

Re: Downtown San Francisco Luxury Apartment Tower Loses Half Its Value

#48

Post by wesapien »

addicted wrote: post #46
wesapien wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a well known fact homeless people come and stay in California for the mild weather. A lot of homeless are drug addicts and mental health issues. They can't hold down a job being that way. Normal people would just move or leave.

Why are they coming to SF and not all going to LA then? Of course all the research (admittedly limited, but there is no research showing this “well known fact”) this well know fact is just false.

SF and LA are both in California. There are many factors why they don't ALL go there but LA has a significantly bigger homeless population than Oakland and SF.

Re: Downtown San Francisco Luxury Apartment Tower Loses Half Its Value

#49

Post by api »

wesapien wrote: post #47
addicted wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are they coming to SF and not all going to LA then? Of course all the research (admittedly limited, but there is no research showing this “well known fact”) this well know fact is just false.

Progressive capture of most institutions makes a lot of research questionable in this particular world of ideas.

This one seems like a pretty simple question to answer: randomly poll 100 homeless people and ask whether they become homeless in California or came there homeless from elsewhere.

Not hard, not complicated.

Re: Downtown San Francisco Luxury Apartment Tower Loses Half Its Value

#50

Post by iancmceachern »

Am4TIfIsER0ppos wrote: post #33
iancmceachern wrote: post #6

Check out this building in SOMA, it was finished, sat empty waiting for permits for 2 years because the City sucks, and during that time the condo market crashed and so now the builder had to hand it back to the lender. Full brand new condo building one block from Oracle Park with like 24 luxury condos in it for 16 mil now: https://sfstandard.com/2023/08/16/brand-new-san-francisco-co...

They built without permits? And the bank just gets to take it back rather than the govt requiring demolition?

Source?

Pretty sure thats not what happened in this case

Post reply on HN