Inside San Francisco's housing crisis

Moving further means increased commuting cost. For drivers this comes in the form of massively increased fuel costs. For transit users this comes in the form of increased fares, since BART practices distance-based pricing.

Commuting daily from Fremont to SF costs $12, that's over 1h of minimum wage. Imagine if you had to pay 10-15% of your total income (pre-tax!) just to get to work. More if you're unable to get a full 8h of work a day.

Moving further also means a large reduction in disposal free time. Free time is a bit of a misnomer when it comes to the poor though - since the time isn't actually free. The article touches on this at a few points - the working poor require a lot of government subsidies and aid organizations for survival, all of which takes time, and most of which are located in SF.

One of the key inhibitors in helping people out of homelessness is, to be simplistic, lining up for things. The basic services they need to survive have huge lines to access them, making a large proportion of their lives idling in a waiting room, waiting for one necessary thing after another. Imagine the DMV, but every day, and multiple times a day.

All of this exacerbated by living far away. Not only are you waiting around forever for basic things, you're now spending more time to get there in the first place.

Even to a rational, completely-informed actor (an unsafe assumption, to say the least), the economics of living further away may not actually work.

Prop G will be a retroactive tax applied to anyone who bought a multi unit building in SF in the last few years who would sell it the next few years. Tenants have no problem pushing this bill stating that buying a building does not entitle you to a lifelong contract and that 'things can change' which will negatively effect you. So even though you bought a building a year ago with no hint it could be taxed at 25%, you are now expected to pay that tax if you sell.

Now, on the other hand we have tenants who are upset that they have to leave their homes they (wrongly) assumed they could rent in forever. Either this is from ellis, OMI or other eviction. I feel for these people to a extent- But I am not a believer in the whole "right to stay in your birth city forever" movement. I do not believe anyone has any more of a right to live in San Francisco than they do Malibu or Aspen. It is one of the most expensive metros in the US.

If you are a 90 year old grandmother who was counting on your landlord not evicting the whole building, you should have known that was a risky bet to begin with. If you want to stay in a place forever you should buy the home. Otherwise, you need to be prepared to move should situations change. You need to prepare for all 'disasters' - That could be eviction, fire, death, floods, etc.. If you dont prepare, I will be sorry for you- But I dont think that entitles legal protection either. If you lose your house from a fire with no insurance, you are going to bare that burden alone.

Roaring economy, NIMBYism, affordable housing -- pick two.

SF has picked roaring economy and NIMBYism.