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

Inside San Francisco's housing crisis

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 185 posts

Re: Inside San Francisco's housing crisis

#141

Post by remarkEon »

selectodude wrote: post #28
bequanna wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're looking for affordable housing, it would probably be wise to look anywhere other than SF: http://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-is-more-expensi... The East Bay is only a 45 min BART ride away from downtown, and considerably cheaper.

Only coming from personal experience, that $1737 number for a 1bed in Chicago is very high and makes me question the rest of their numbers.

Currently living in Seattle and their numbers seem pretty spot on anecdotally for what people are paying now, though a few of my friends are looking and they have found nothing under $2500 for a 2 bedroom. Seattle I think is going to be a city to watch closely the next few years for similar types of housing strife we see in SF. Once all the Amazon construction is complete it's going to get awfully crowded awfully fast.

Re: Inside San Francisco's housing crisis

#142

Post by smsm42 »

dasil003 wrote: post #77
DanBlake wrote: post #27

There is a interesting anti-correlation between this and Prop G. 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…

The reason for the double standard is obvious though: no once cares about rich people's problems. I say that slightly tongue-in-cheek, but there's a legitimate social problem here. Rents in SF could not grow so out of control without the income disparities also growing. Of course a city is not a closed population, so a good portion of the problem comes from rich people disproportionately moving to San Francisco, but…

>> there is no mediating factors such as a massive need for human labor or a common cultural belief among the mega-wealthy in a moral duty towards philanthropy, or even just simple taxation

Are you saying earnings in SF aren't taxed at usual CA rates, being highest in the nation? How could I get on this wonderful deal?

Also, I recently been to some places featuring walls and booklets listing people donating tens and thousands of hundreds of dollars to construction and maintenance of said places. If what you're saying is true, either these people aren't rich (and I wonder what "rich" means in your book then) or they did it of of some sinister motive which I'd like to ask you to explain to me.

>> a lot of productivity gains come from deploying capital to automate things (software being a part of this)

Despite popular belief, software doesn't write itself automatically. There are still some meatbags around clicking on those keys. Of course, you can automate manufacturing - but there's no significant manufacturing in Bay Area to automate anyway, and automation of services is still largely a dream.

>> So the deck is stacked heavily in favor of people coming in and flipping SF property

Last time I remember people trying to come and make living exclusively by flipping property without doing anything else ended up in what is called now Great Recession. I'm not sure that event can be treated as "stacked heavily in favor" of most of those who participated in the flipping. Of course, on higher levels (national-level banks) there were other games, but those didn't do property flipping.

>>> only to find that rents quadrupled in a 5-year period

If you tolerated quadrupling rents for 5 years, you're part of the problem - you're the one allowing to charge quadruple rents by paying it. 5 years is enough time to find other options. In fact, in 5 years you can learn a new language and move to a new country, not just find a job in the next city.

>>> there aren't enough such jobs to maintain a middle class that way.

But from this article we see there's no such jobs in SF either, it's just in Modesto if you're out of a job, your savings last you 3 years of rent, in SF they last you 3 months.

Re: Inside San Francisco's housing crisis

#143

Post by x0x0 »

Kalium wrote: post #139
x0x0 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same amount of effort as when lobbying for something they actually want. As I said above. See eg twitter for tax breaks, or the $16m google spent lobbying the US alone in 2013 [1]. Or the ceo going to council meetings and being actively involved. Or any of a dozen things you could think of yourself that would demonstrate google actually investing some effort into housing. Or transport. But no -- your links show t…

Just to be clear, your position is that Google should invest many millions into things that aren't business concerns at all for them. At a time when they get massive amounts of blowback for any attempt to be involved in local politics. Is that right?

Just to be clear, you're now moving the goalposts -- I demonstrated your claim that google is involved is patent bullshit. Your claim about blowback is similar.

And yes, companies -- and the larger they are, the more so -- should be involved in the communities in which they and their employees are located. This is true for many, perhaps most, firms that aren't tech firms. And they often are! Go to eg council meetings or zoning board meetings or other local government meetings in eg nyc. For many people in the communities in which these large tech firms are located, they've had bad effects. Google has a responsibility to these communities that they are currently ducking. The tech community as a whole has a responsibility to the bay area the community is almost entirely skipping out on. Being proactive about housing and transport would be helpful to both the employees and other residents of the communities.

Re: Inside San Francisco's housing crisis

#144

Post by smsm42 »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #138
smsm42 wrote: post #126

Something that jumped at me in the beginning, about the soup kitchen line: Some carry iPods and smartphones, others come in suits. Am I wrong to assume that somebody that can afford a smartphone and accompanying plans (which are not that cheap) and other gadgets like iPod, which probably means they own a computer and a broadband internet connection too - usually aren't so poor that they would literally starve without…

This is a common thought, but it can be awfully misleading. First, anything that doesn't have a recurring charge -- like the suit and the iPod -- is something that may well have been bought when they had a higher income level. Second, if you're looking for work today -- even outside of the tech sector -- not having a phone is very often not an option. Prospective employers need to be able to reach you and vice-versa,…

iPod is not very useful without a computer and supposedly new music downloaded through the internet using broadband. Phones can be gotten for free (e.g. the famous "Obamaphone" or SafeLink) but it doesn't have to be a smartphone, which requires an expensive data plan ($60/m for a person who has literally no money for food seems to be not a negligible sum). The employer has to reach you, but it doesn't have to like your Facebook updates, right? I'm just thinking maybe it's not always need but sometimes convenience.

Re: Inside San Francisco's housing crisis

#145

Post by dragonwriter »

smsm42 wrote: post #142
dasil003 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason for the double standard is obvious though: no once cares about rich people's problems. I say that slightly tongue-in-cheek, but there's a legitimate social problem here. Rents in SF could not grow so out of control without the income disparities also growing. Of course a city is not a closed population, so a good portion of the problem comes from rich people disproportionately moving to San Francisco, but…

>> there is no mediating factors such as a massive need for human labor or a common cultural belief among the mega-wealthy in a moral duty towards philanthropy, or even just simple taxation Are you saying earnings in SF aren't taxed at usual CA rates, being highest in the nation? How could I get on this wonderful deal? Also, I recently been to some places featuring walls and booklets listing people donating tens and…

> Last time I remember people trying to come and make living exclusively by flipping property without doing anything else ended up in what is called now Great Recession.

Which was bad for lots of people, but not principally the people actually doing the flipping (some of them may have gotten caught in a bad position with two much sunk in inventory at the wrong time when the market crashed, but, generally -- OTOH, lots of people interested in flipping picked up property at discount prices due to the crash, too.)

Re: Inside San Francisco's housing crisis

#146

Post by smsm42 »

pchristensen wrote: post #133
smsm42 wrote: post #126

Something that jumped at me in the beginning, about the soup kitchen line: Some carry iPods and smartphones, others come in suits. Am I wrong to assume that somebody that can afford a smartphone and accompanying plans (which are not that cheap) and other gadgets like iPod, which probably means they own a computer and a broadband internet connection too - usually aren't so poor that they would literally starve without…

Some smartphones are under $200 with pay as you go plans. Also, it's getting harder to get a feature phone now. People keep them for years, for what could be People make judgement calls about what they need, and a smartphone is probably just as essential to someone seeking employment in the city as a working car is for someone looking for a job in the suburbs. Even if you need to take it to the soup kitchen.

I'm not sure how the smartphone is essential, could you explain? If you need to look up jobs, local library and good old pen & paper is always at your service. Same with recording and keeping appointments - a good old notebook would work. Calling prospective employers doesn't need a smartphone. If you need to make something like printed resume, smartphone is no help, you need a real computer anyway. So where it is essential? I'm not sure I still get it.

Re: Inside San Francisco's housing crisis

#147

Post by maxerickson »

dragonwriter wrote: post #130
maxerickson wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I did okay understanding how the other poster was using the word, they were talking about a government assembly making laws, not about law making in general (why would anybody bother saying "law making communism" vs "communism"?).

If one is using "communism" as in actual Communist theory, then "government-assembly-directed-communism" doesn't make sense either -- that's, in that framework, socialism , communism is what you get after the state withers away. If you are using "communism" in the usual sense anti-Communist speakers due -- referring to government structure typical of authoritarian regimes that have espouse Communism as an ideology --…

Your last sentence was more or less my point, I just screwed it up with "more or less the opposite of legislative", which I admit is confused, but I was trying to say that the Prop wasn't being handed down by the government.

Re: Inside San Francisco's housing crisis

#148

Post by Kalium »

x0x0 wrote: post #143
Kalium wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be clear, your position is that Google should invest many millions into things that aren't business concerns at all for them. At a time when they get massive amounts of blowback for any attempt to be involved in local politics. Is that right?

Just to be clear, you're now moving the goalposts -- I demonstrated your claim that google is involved is patent bullshit. Your claim about blowback is similar. And yes, companies -- and the larger they are, the more so -- should be involved in the communities in which they and their employees are located. This is true for many, perhaps most, firms that aren't tech firms. And they often are! Go to eg council meetings…

I'd say the tech community is obliged to return that care which is shown for them. At a time when "Die techie scum" is a rallying cry, be thankful apathy is all you get.

Re: Inside San Francisco's housing crisis

#149

Post by astrocat »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #80
astrocat wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many may interpret this as victim blaming but I think it's a valid question: why have we as a country/culture become so much more resistant to moving? I know I've read more comprehensive literature on this before a but a quick google brought up these starting points: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/05/11/declining_ame... http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/generati... I understand that we dev…

it seems that this fear has become limiting A network of friends and family for such things as childcare and temporary accomodation is worth dollars. If you can leave your son/daughter with their grandmother while at work or can find a couch at a friend's house while between jobs you can put up with lower local wages. To move elsewhere, the new job would have to pay enough for childcare and to allow to build a cushio…

All this is true, and very understandable. But the question remains, why is it NOW more common to stay put rather than relocate? What is it about the modern environment that makes people so much more reluctant to pick up and move? With all the benefits of modern communication and technology that makes maintaining social connections over distances and receiving financial support from anywhere so easy, you'd think it'd be easier to move than before when leaving really meant "leaving."

Re: Inside San Francisco's housing crisis

#150

Post by tedunangst »

tptacek wrote: post #114
ktothemc wrote: post #85

I was the person who wrote that super-long take on the San Francisco housing crisis in spring on TechCrunch. http://www.techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/ I'll just say this. It's four issues compounded. 1) Growth controls enacted in the 1960s and 1970s: Beginning in the late 1960s, the California Supreme Court started making a series of anti-development rulings: for example, one decision ruled that cities didn't…

Here's a question for you: REITs dehumanize and perhaps volatilize real estate markets. Do their benefits outweigh their costs? And if so, what are those benefits? Is it legitimate public policy in a system that ostensible has free markets as a principle to suppress or otherwise regulate REITs?

Benefit: REITs commoditize the real estate market. If you're just a regular joe and you want to invest in stock or gold or pork bellies, a reasonably small investment is enough to get you started. Trying to buy into real estate is nigh impossible, though, unless you pool money because the "unit" price is so high.
Post reply on HN