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

Evicted in San Francisco

priceonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 257 posts

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#131

Post by rtpg »

krschultz wrote: post #39
fishtoaster wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like she moved there when it was cheap. Is it reasonable to expect her to leave her friends, contacts, etc that she's built up over decades because the city is changing? Housing isn't widgets: it's not easy to move to a cheaper type if your current type gets expensive. There isn't an easy answer to this sort of problem, but to imply that she should simply "move somewhere else" is simplistic in the extreme.…

My parents bought their house in the 1980s. They paid it off 100%. When they retired they moved. Would it have been preferable to keep the house the whole family grew up in? Probably. But they couldn't afford the overhead of utilities, maintenance, etc. They moved to a smaller house in a state with lower property taxes. They too left their friends, contacts, etc. Built up over living there for 35 years. But it was th…

>Why should it be everyone else's burden if they make a stupid decision to stay put in a place they can't afford? Is that a right?

Obviously utilities going up should be considered in rent, but in a property tax-free world, someone staying is not a burden on the owner, except in the "he could be making even more money". The owner ends up making less because they might not be market value, but considering that what he's doing is rent-seeking anyways, there's not that much moral high ground for the guy who wants to increase rent just because of "the market".

Obviously these problems are nuanced (and economists seem to all agree that rent control = bad )

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#132

Post by SilasX »

twoodfin wrote: post #104
tn13 wrote: post #46

The reality is that none of us deserve anything. The so called social welfare is nothing but a government's excuse to reduce our liberties. If there is any reason why poor can not afford housing in SF then it is not the fault of the landlord who is trying to make maximum money but the government regulations which prevent him from doing so. It is beyond me why In-Law unit is illegal in SF. The city is expensive, poor…

The city is expensive, poor people are clearly willing to stay in these illegal units which is a better option than staying in a car. What exactly is government's problem ? I am pretty anti-regulation as such things go, but one plausible reason: Such "close quarters" tenancy is bound in the aggregate of a big city to lead to a large number of he-said, she-said disputes of the sort that are nearly impossible for the c…

Wait, the possibility of hard-to-resolve domestic disputes justifies banning that arrangement? Why not go after, say, roommates? Or marriage!

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#133

Post by cperciva »

yukichan wrote: post #130
eqdw wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That might have been good advice 30 years ago, but it certainly isn't now. Modern insulin preparations should be kept at room temperature while in use for up to 30 days -- keeping it refrigerated while in use is contraindicated due to the potential for thermal cycling to result in inaccurate dosing -- and keeping insulin "on ice" is never recommended due to the risk of the insulin being damaged by freezing. Do you…

Please consult a doctor. Do not take advice about important medical needs from strangers on Hacker News.

Quite right in general, of course, but diabetics form something of a special case. Most of us know more about our condition than most doctors.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#134

Post by nickff »

jjoonathan wrote: post #106
nickff wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I intentionally avoided use of the word "unrepresentative", as I was not sure what would qualify as representative of those who have been evicted. I understand that my use of "sympathetic" may be viewed as similarly vague, but I believe that its meaning may be more well-understood.

What point were you trying to make? I assumed you weren't talking about rich assholes getting evicted for unconscionable behavior, since that would be completely irrelevant to the discussion about gentrification (at least, as far as I could tell). Instead, I fuzzily matched your argument to the nearest one that I thought made sense in context ("they could have found an even less sympathetic postergirl for evictees if…

I was addressing your original point that said:

>"this raises questions about how representative Inge is of the evictee population. I suspect the answer is "not very."

You are correct in your fuzzy logic, I was first making the point that the author could have picked a less sympathetic individual, if the author's intent had been to malign evicted tenants. My second point was intended to state that I am not sure what type of person would be "representative" of the individuals evicted; criticizing an author for not finding a person who does not fit an undefined descriptor seems unfair to the columnist.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#135

Post by SilasX »

j10t wrote: post #101

The intersection of Mission & 16th Street is price-equivalent to Greenwich Ave & Jane Street. Assuming price per square foot is a proxy for the ratio of demand to supply, these are the most coveted locations to live in the world. Should a retired taxi driver be able to afford such a location? Should we be upset that she cannot?

Indeed. From the fact that we should care for the poor, it simply doesn't follow that we should give them luxury goods. We'd scoff at someone who suggested giving the poor vouchers for caviar. But do the same thing with housing instead of food, and ...

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#136

Post by tungwaiyip »

roc wrote: post #36
steven777400 wrote: post #10

We don't have a strong enough social welfare net (or enough resources there-in) to care for folks that need care; but, we're not comfortable letting them starve on the streets either. The result? Essentially innocent people, like the property owner, get "stuck" with "it's your problem now" where various agencies give contradictory mandates, backed with fines. How was property owner supposed to respond when told he mu…

I don't even think a stronger safety net would have helped in this case. It sounds like she simply wasn't interested in changing anything and that just doesn't work when you have to move and have to change your lifestyle (e.g. stop hoarding). This is all-too-familiar to me, after having helped a couple older relatives through serious late-life changes like this. Further, the general lack of safety net doesn't really…

From the American Community Survey (ACS), $1,300 per month will put her in the 13% percentile in San Francisco household income. This looks like a decent safety net to me.

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/...

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#137

Post by Mz »

eshvk wrote: post #113
Mz wrote: post #66

I really hate articles like this. Excerpt: A look inside her Volvo is enough to curdle a stomach of steel: trash bags are piled high in the back seat, open packages of food topple into a litter box full of cat feces, door-sides are crammed full of half-smoked Pall Malls and prescription painkillers. I am homeless. I do not live that way. Not everyone who is homeless chooses to live in filth. Plus, earlier in the arti…

I am sorry to hear you feel like that. To offer a counter perspective: I found the article to be unusually well-balanced. It was sympathetic to both her and the landlord. Also, I don't know if the author's detailed description (probably of artistic intent) of one homeless person's life impugns on the reputation of all people who are down on their luck and temporarily homeless. I feel like you are conflating your pers…

a) These articles and discussions of them routinely talk about homeless people in very negative terms that are akin to racism, sexism, or similar. I find that personally frustrating because my status as a homeless person gets used as an excuse to be dismissive of me personally. I feel that is one of my biggest issues as a person on the street. I can manage to keep myself safe, fed, etc. But the stigma when people realize I am homeless causes me problems. I get looked upon with suspicion, etc. This is true both online and off. (Yes, I realize I could in theory keep my big mouth shut about my housing situation online. I have my reasons why I don't.)

b) There is no similarity between me ripping out carpets and her threats to burn the building down. The similarity in my mind is that the housing itself was problematic for reasons that are largely out of the hands of both tenant and landlord. In her case, she was in an illegal rental, without proper egress, it's own electric bill, etc. According to the article, such places may account for 10% of the rental stock in SF. To me, that indicates a systemic problem, not specifically about this woman or her landlord.

I was training at one time to be an urban planner. I think this is an issue of local laws and policies as well as federal laws and policies.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#138

Post by refurb »

krschultz wrote: post #39
fishtoaster wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like she moved there when it was cheap. Is it reasonable to expect her to leave her friends, contacts, etc that she's built up over decades because the city is changing? Housing isn't widgets: it's not easy to move to a cheaper type if your current type gets expensive. There isn't an easy answer to this sort of problem, but to imply that she should simply "move somewhere else" is simplistic in the extreme.…

My parents bought their house in the 1980s. They paid it off 100%. When they retired they moved. Would it have been preferable to keep the house the whole family grew up in? Probably. But they couldn't afford the overhead of utilities, maintenance, etc. They moved to a smaller house in a state with lower property taxes. They too left their friends, contacts, etc. Built up over living there for 35 years. But it was th…

Slight quibble: seniors get Medicare, not Medicaid.

Medicaid is for lower-income folks and the disabled, except some disabled who get Medicare.

However, you can be eligible for both (so called-dual eligibles).

...I'll see myself out....

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#139

Post by kansface »

jedanbik wrote: post #96
GuiA wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Still a citizen of Germany, she has the option of repatriating to her homeland, which has a free program for nationals wishing to relocate. She’d be able to get off the plane, connect with social services, and get subsidized housing and medical coverage. But for 50 years, she has built a life for herself in San Francisco, and that’s something she doesn’t want to give up."

But could she get on the plane?

I willing to bet the landlord would have paid for uber and the ticket.
Post reply on HN