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

161–170 of 257 posts

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#161

Post by nirnira »

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…

Disagree. I think the existing social welfare system in your country is hugely destructive, and you need to weaken and dismantle it as much as possible.

Social welfare weakens incentives for individuals to plan and live for the future. People should pay for their own lives with their own dollars, and if they are too foolish and imprudent to account for their old age, they should suffer the consequences of their own actions. They have no one to blame but themselves for not analysing the dangers.

Once people become aware that there are no second chances, behaviour will improve. It's a short-term pain for a major long-term benefit.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#162

Post by desuma »

The article is a Rorschach test for housing policy. Do you see yourself as the vulnerable elderly tenant, forced to move and abandon your longtime existence? Or the kindly landlord, trapped between two contradictory legal regimes?

I live in San Francisco, and own a 2-unit building in the heart of the tech shuttle stops near Dolores Park. I had rented in the city for years before that. I couldn't have bought my place (almost unlivably dilapidated in the 2009 downturn) without a job at Google and help from my college friend who agreed to rent one of the apartments, despite the hot tub installed in the living room by the previous owner. Sadly, she's moving out this summer.

Almost all of my friends rent, and very few of them work in tech. My partner is an artist, and his contribution to SF culture is an irreplaceable part of what makes SF great, but it's not remotely competitive financially with tech. I've personally benefitted from the city and its business and social cultures. I have a duty to pay it back.

But I won't rent the vacant apartment, because renting to someone is a commitment more permanent than marriage. My house - not accounting for the insane appreciation - is more than 50% of my net assets. It'd be irresponsible.

There has to be some protection for the cultural core of San Francisco, given its status as a boom-bust town. Rent stabilization, a la NYC. A maximum-allowable rent increase, tied to inflation. But there also needs to be a lot more housing. Rent control is a populist disaster that sounds great - remember "The rent is too damn high!"? - but actually accomplishes the reverse of its stated intent.

The current political paralysis is a nightmare, and a fascinating window onto the class politics that our modern scaled economy is creating.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#163

Post by chaostheory »

jonknee wrote: post #156
tsotha wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Sounds pretty smart to me. Sure. Sometimes it's pretty smart to screw other people over. I guess it just depends on what kind of person you are.

Are you referring to the person who bought a property knowing about an illegal rental unit and ultimately took their money for years until it was opportune to kick out the nearly destitute leasee?

1. The Bay Area as a whole has pretty good public transit. 2. There are plenty of cheap single room rentals outside of SF. 3. She wasn't living on public property. It's private.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#164

Post by twoodfin »

SilasX wrote: post #132
twoodfin wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Roommates don't sign leases with each other, and marriage contracts are also highly regulated, e.g no-fault.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#165

Post by jonknee »

chaostheory wrote: post #163
jonknee wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you referring to the person who bought a property knowing about an illegal rental unit and ultimately took their money for years until it was opportune to kick out the nearly destitute leasee?

1. The Bay Area as a whole has pretty good public transit. 2. There are plenty of cheap single room rentals outside of SF. 3. She wasn't living on public property. It's private.

Sure. It's just the knee jerk reaction that the person not paying rent is the one "screwing someone over" and not the landlord who has collected illegal rent for years and gets to skip out on the responsibilities that entails.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#166

Post by d4vlx »

smtddr wrote: post #160
malandrew wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. The tech boom isn't at fault here. The refusal to make the necessary changes that allow the housing supply to grow is to blame. Basically, San Francisco voters are responsible for the evictions, whether they be natives, long-time residents or recent tech transplants.

Grow at the expense of what though? So you tear down anything you can to increase SF's ability to hold all the things techies enjoy... and then one day, all this booming goes away and you're left with... http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/3433 ...kinda like the real-estate boom. Build houses anywhere & everywhere because everyone suddenly can afford a house(or at least get the loan)... then one day that isn't the case…

Or you could get something like Manhattan, which seems more likely than a repeat of Dubai in 2009.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#167

Post by robryan »

jonknee wrote: post #156
tsotha wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Sounds pretty smart to me. Sure. Sometimes it's pretty smart to screw other people over. I guess it just depends on what kind of person you are.

Are you referring to the person who bought a property knowing about an illegal rental unit and ultimately took their money for years until it was opportune to kick out the nearly destitute leasee?

So by the same logic the woman should have never taken up the lease in the first place given the illegal nature of it.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#168

Post by robryan »

jonknee wrote: post #145
pilom wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Is it reasonable to expect her to leave her friends, contacts, etc that she's built up over decades because the city is changing? YES! Absolutely reasonable. There is no right to live exactly where you want for the rest of your life (especially when where you want to live is an illegal residence). Nor should there be.

The ironic part here is that it was an illegal unit and the owner of that unit is making nearly a million dollars while the person who has paid rent for decades is homeless. Why isn't there a huge fine for renting an illegal apartment for years? Seems like a great gig to collect money from someone until you want to report yourself and get permission to evict them and flip the property.

The tenant is also aware of the legal status of the unit.

The rental laws seem to be very restrictive over there. Here in Australia you are often given a one year contract which can then go to month to month with a months eviction warning if not renewed into a longer contract. If it was me I would just be happy that I had a good thing going for as long as I did. Essentially the uncertainty is already priced in to the rental price, it is well below market value.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#169

Post by zevyoura »

nirnira wrote: post #161
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…

Disagree. I think the existing social welfare system in your country is hugely destructive, and you need to weaken and dismantle it as much as possible. Social welfare weakens incentives for individuals to plan and live for the future. People should pay for their own lives with their own dollars, and if they are too foolish and imprudent to account for their old age, they should suffer the consequences of their own a…

I think you'll have a hard time convincing the majority of Americans (or even just humans in general) that we should literally let people die on the street.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#170

Post by seanmcdirmid »

hack_edu wrote: post #112
smtddr wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>I'm not saying we shouldn't help these people, but if you are complaining about not being able to get by in the most expensive city in the country, I really don't have any sympathy for you. I have sympathy for them, because the current tech-boom is displacing (or greatly accelerating a process that was already happening much faster than they can handle.) them and I think that's a shame. IMHO, what makes SF great is…

Build baby, build.

Build where? SF is hemmed in by hills and ocean. Housing is mostly low rise, but dense and very much in the style of Tokyo given similar issues (earthquakes). Then you have a bunch of beautiful Victorians to tear down before you can build some dense high rise housing.

SF is quite dense already, not like the exclusive suburbs to the south.

Post reply on HN