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

Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 104 posts

Re: Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco

#81

Post by aianus »

marincounty wrote: post #54
wozniacki wrote: post #8

The top-voted comment for the same piece in the Economist explores the rent-seeking behavior of SF landlords, the origins and the conditions that gave rise to Prop 13 in the first place and proposes a set of (albeit, I admit, a bit far-fetched) solutions: I am one of these SF oligarchs, and I benefit from high rents of both types. Nevertheless, I have long called for an end to the rent-seeking. To me, the problem sta…

I don't think they will ever get rid of prop. 13. I remember my conservative/blue collar father breathed a huge sigh of relief when prop 13 was passed. Before prop 13 property taxes were kicking older/retired/sick/middle income people out of their homes--yearly. If you are lucky and can buy a home in the Bay Area--believe me forced retirement comes pretty quick.(This goes 10 fold for non-union workers). Getting old s…

> Having to get rid of a house you maintained for years because you can't afford the property taxes is criminal.

What? This only happens if you've made astronomical capital gains on it. Big deal, you're set for life -- just not in SF.

Re: Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco

#82

Post by mc32 »

rayiner wrote: post #74
andrewfong wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While building in SF proper would decrease rents there I'm not sure that's a given. Building lots of luxury housing in SF might actually decrease rent in Oakland and other parts of the Bay Area but not have an appreciable effect on rent in SF proper, at least in the short term. In fact, you could even argue that because of network effects and gentrification, building more luxury housing in SF would actually increas…

The usual life cycle of high-rise luxury housing is that buildings move somewhat downmarket as they age. The bulk of your housing stock downtown is going to be 30-40 year old buildings that can't carry the premium rents of new luxury buildings. But you won't get to that point if you don't start building now.

This is a good point and one worth making. Unfortunately neither politicians nor renting residents look that far afield to the detriment of the area and future residents.

Re: Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco

#83

Post by gdubs »

A lot of focus on zoning and new construction limits when the housing crises comes up -- but what about foreign investment? I'd be curious to hear an argument over residency requirements. It's very appealing for a foreign investor to park their cash in real estate. The more that gets bought up and remains unoccupied, the tighter the market, and the more that prices continue to rise...

Re: Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco

#84

Post by aantix »

grundprinzip wrote: post #26

Something that is (typically) left out in these articles about how expensive rent in SF is, is that even for tech folks with rather high income the city becomes too expensive as soon as you have family. It might be ok to pay 2.5k per bedroom when you're single, but when you pay an additional 1.5k per child in daycare perspective changes. In my opinion, if the trans-bay (e.g. Oakland to San Mateo) and around-the-bay (…

Childcare expenses and lack of affordable housing options for a family of four are two of the primary reasons my wife and I moved away.

I really didn't feel like being on the hook for a $6,000/mo mortgage for the next 30 years. It'd still be a mediocre home at best and I'd never see my kids because I'd be out hustling trying to pay for it.

No thanks.

Re: Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco

#85

Post by iolothebard »

If they'd get rid of the ridiculous rent control, that would help a lot on both sides.

When I moved out there I considered buying a 3 story home out by Ocean Beach. Then to afford it renting out 2 of the 3 floors. After doing some risk analysis (researching the legal aspects) there was no way I could do that and expect to not get burned in a multitude of ways.

So it creates this really shady market for illegal rentals (you have to drive around to find them) and an adversarial way of living in this supposed liberal utopia.

Not my cup of tea, but I have many friends that love living in the city.

Re: Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco

#86

Post by iolothebard »

marincounty wrote: post #54
wozniacki wrote: post #8

The top-voted comment for the same piece in the Economist explores the rent-seeking behavior of SF landlords, the origins and the conditions that gave rise to Prop 13 in the first place and proposes a set of (albeit, I admit, a bit far-fetched) solutions: I am one of these SF oligarchs, and I benefit from high rents of both types. Nevertheless, I have long called for an end to the rent-seeking. To me, the problem sta…

I don't think they will ever get rid of prop. 13. I remember my conservative/blue collar father breathed a huge sigh of relief when prop 13 was passed. Before prop 13 property taxes were kicking older/retired/sick/middle income people out of their homes--yearly. If you are lucky and can buy a home in the Bay Area--believe me forced retirement comes pretty quick.(This goes 10 fold for non-union workers). Getting old s…

The problem is when you cap gains at 1-2%, any time inflation is higher, that person is now getting a subsidy.

This is why CA has enormous debt and swaths of areas that have gone bankrupt. It's not sustainable.

Get rid of Prop 13 (or raise the limit) and rent control. I'd say cap it at 5% because if inflation is higher than that, well that's on the Federal Government more than local.

SF isn't making more land and they're also making it impossible to build up. Hell, my buddy looked into adding a deck onto his house. After doing research he figured it wasn't worth it (some people face years of delays getting neighbors to sign off on a deck on their own f'ing property).

Re: Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco

#88

Post by wmeredith »

matt_morgan wrote: post #87

"You see this in London, for instance, where /literally/ [my emphasis] every house in the city is now being rehabilitated, including those that were rehabilitated last year." Et tu, The Economist?

Yeah, this stuck out like a sore thumb to me. Gross.

Re: Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco

#89

Post by ThrustVectoring »

Land-value taxes would be a good part of the solution. Part of the unaffordability of the area is because the network effect of having lots of tech people in one area is extracted twice: once by income taxes on the extra productivity, and again by landlords on the money spent chasing the right to live in a high-productivity area.

Re: Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco

#90

Post by gamblor956 »

gdubs wrote: post #83

A lot of focus on zoning and new construction limits when the housing crises comes up -- but what about foreign investment? I'd be curious to hear an argument over residency requirements. It's very appealing for a foreign investor to park their cash in real estate. The more that gets bought up and remains unoccupied, the tighter the market, and the more that prices continue to rise...

In DTLA alone, we have foreign investment (mostly Chinese and Taiwanese) to thank for the construction of nearly 2,000 new apartment units over the past 3 years (including units still under construction), with an additional 2,000 apartments and 1,000 condos planned over the next 5 years.
Post reply on HN