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

171–180 of 257 posts

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#171

Post by astrodust »

apr wrote: post #68
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…

Especially given that she was speeding the day of reckoning with "Fuck you" notes. I am 100% with the property owner here.

Nothing to lose, right?

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#172

Post by jeffdavis »

trhway wrote: post #129
hack_edu wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But is that reason to be mean and obstruct anyone who challenges your comfort zone?

that is the point - it is basically a definition of diagnostable situation when reasoning machinery doesn't function well (i'm not a doctor of course). I mean, was she mean and obstructing by explicit willful choice or was it a panic reaction and collapse of reasoning machinery in response to what she perceived as destruction of her world? Former is ill will, while later would seem to be a diagnostable episode.

What difference does it make? Pretty much everything has reasons behind it. A diagnosis is just giving one of those reasons a name.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#173

Post by TDL »

geebee wrote: post #89
forrestthewoods wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's almost as if excessive regulation and NIMBY-ism in San Francisco has created an artifical bubble of hyper inflated housing prices that causes the most harm to the people who are in most need of help. Damn.

This comes up every now and then. I'm really not sure there is as much NIMBYism in SF relative to other cities as many people believe. By the way, by "not really sure", I mean not really sure. I just view it as more of an open question than many people here on HN do. Here's where I'm coming from - SF is small, old, and largely built. It's in the middle of a very large metropolitan area, but it includes many of the ol…

So we should simply ask another question. If I buy a city block in S.F. can I a build a 40 story high rise to accommodate the growing population?

The assumption being that I can buy the city block & it's in near other high rises.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#174

Post by hapless »

geebee wrote: post #89
forrestthewoods wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's almost as if excessive regulation and NIMBY-ism in San Francisco has created an artifical bubble of hyper inflated housing prices that causes the most harm to the people who are in most need of help. Damn.

This comes up every now and then. I'm really not sure there is as much NIMBYism in SF relative to other cities as many people believe. By the way, by "not really sure", I mean not really sure. I just view it as more of an open question than many people here on HN do. Here's where I'm coming from - SF is small, old, and largely built. It's in the middle of a very large metropolitan area, but it includes many of the ol…

SF has a very low density.

It's less dense than LA. If you want to compare it to NYC, it's less dense than the NYC suburbs in NJ and Queens.

Rebuilding at higher densities is definitely practical, they just choose not to do so.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#175

Post by tsotha »

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?

They "took her money" because they were providing her a place to live at far below market. The only reason they kicked her out is she didn't give them any other option. If you're such a pain in the ass your neighbors report you to the city it's hard to get may people to show up for your pity party.

And she was "nearly destitute" because she refused any and all offers of help. The landlord even offered to give her $14k in go-away money but she refused.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#176

Post by TDL »

maxjones1 wrote: post #158
w1ntermute wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's amazing how so many people refuse to accept that out-of-control housing prices are due to artificial scarcity, and that the solution is deregulation, rather than even more idiotic rent control and eviction regulations. David Campos is now trying to enact legislation to penalize Ellis Act evictions. More than two decades after the USSR collapsed, and people are still clinging to socialist ideologies.

restricting supply to drive up prices is socialist????

When it's done through a coercive act of government, yes.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#177

Post by spiralpolitik »

tsotha wrote: post #154
mjmahone17 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The crazy thing is that San Fran homeowners have essentially tried to increase housing supplies in the past, by creating in-law units such as the one in the story. However, it's now more lucrative to get rid of them than to keep them on and collect rent on them. It would seem to make more sense for zoning laws to require multi-family homes (or in-law units), or at least to incentivize creating more of them. If there…

Any mayor who made a serious effort to crack down would be run out on a rail. The last thing SF needs is fewer rental units.

Give the landlords incentives to legalize the dwellings (rebates on the work for bringing units into compliance for example). In some cases this would require lowering the legal size of a unit, which I believe they are planning to do anyway to allow developers to build sub 300 square ft units. It's not as if San Francisco is above sweet heart deals to get what it wants (see mid Market development).

Would also be good for the local economy as it would generate work for electricians, plumbers, builders, painters and decorators etc.

After a suitable period of time (say 5 years) and ton of publicity then start cracking down on the remaining non-compliant units.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#178

Post by jjoonathan »

Shivetya wrote: post #32
jedmeyers wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like the Entitled do not consider it to be a privilege. To them once you rented a place somewhere for x years, you are entitled to live at that place indefinitely.

we only have to look to politicians to assign the blame, in the East its called rent control, whats its called in SF? It is like any government handout, except here in the case of money they merely take your rights away to your property.

Blaming this on politicians is lazy and narrowsighted. Compromise is a two way street:

Landowners get zoning rules that prevent them from competing with highrise apartment buildings, turning desirable regions into pressure-cookers that drive rents and property values sky-high.

Tenants get rent control that shields them from the from the worst of the landowner-cartel's machinations. Not as well as they were promised at voting time, but they don't typically invest as much in local politics, so that's to be expected.

The real losers are the people who would move into a neighborhood if they could. They don't get any representation in the local government. That's either a feature or a bug, depending on which side of the fence you're on :)

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#179

Post by spiralpolitik »

aetherson wrote: post #91
TechNewb wrote: post #71

In an SF rent control unit, if the tenant signs a 1 year lease, are they able to decide if they stay or not after the 1 year initial lease term is over?

Yes, unless their landlord is able to evict them for whatever reason. (And, to be clear, all or essentially all rental units in SF are subject to rent control).

Here are the major exemptions to Rent Control in SF:

1. You live in a building constructed after June of 1979.

2. You live in subsidized housing, such as HUD housing projects.

3. You live in a dormitory, monastery, nunnery, etc.

4. You live in a residential hotel and have less than 28 days of continuous tenancy.

So most of the new developments in the last 30 years aren't covered by RC.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#180

Post by trhway »

jeffdavis wrote: post #172
trhway wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that is the point - it is basically a definition of diagnostable situation when reasoning machinery doesn't function well (i'm not a doctor of course). I mean, was she mean and obstructing by explicit willful choice or was it a panic reaction and collapse of reasoning machinery in response to what she perceived as destruction of her world? Former is ill will, while later would seem to be a diagnostable episode.

What difference does it make? Pretty much everything has reasons behind it. A diagnosis is just giving one of those reasons a name.

>What difference does it make?

to me it does. I think as a society we're at the level when we can allow and thus must allow to cut some slack to disabled people, and temporarily or permanent lack of ability to reason is a disability just like not having a leg for example. When some limping guy with a stick say stumble and hit you while falling, would you deploy your anger like it would be in the case of intentional hit? The same way with people who may not be able to function in the society and manage their societal responsibilities at the level we think of as minimally acceptable. Whatever reason for their current condition, to me these are just ill people who need help instead of full legal violence deployed against them. Though, from pure logical point of view, we can just say to this woman that last 20 years she should have learned her some Python, and thus her situation is her own doing. In my personal view, our ability to rein in such logic and deploy compassion instead of it is what determines whether our civilization goes forward or backward.

Post reply on HN