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

111–120 of 257 posts

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#111

Post by eqdw »

jseliger wrote: post #11

Nonetheless, it’s a good time to be a Bornstein in San Francisco: in the past year alone, Ellis Act evictions have risen 170%; since 1997, there have been 3,811, and that number is constantly rising. The obvious solution to rapidly rising prices is to increase supply, as described here ( http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0078XGJXO ) or here ( http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/10/san-francis... ). I've posted both…

If people want to KEEP SAN FRANCISCO THE SAME, they could just build in other cities and amalgamate/improve the existing transit infrastructure, too. I have a working theory that people would be less obsessed with living in San Francisco if it was a mere 10-15 minute transit ride away

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#112

Post by hack_edu »

smtddr wrote: post #105
dntrkv wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It happened to my family. We're definitely not a wealthy or well-connected family. We lost our home in the recession, my dad's business went from doing great to completely closed. We moved to a tiny house in a cheap neighborhood. Started a new business and worked and saved and now we're almost back to where we were before the recession. I'm not saying we shouldn't help these people, but if you are complaining about n…

>>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.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#113

Post by eshvk »

Mz wrote: post #66

I really hate articles like this. Excerpt: A look inside her Volvo is enough to curdle a stomach of steel: trash bags are piled high in the back seat, open packages of food topple into a litter box full of cat feces, door-sides are crammed full of half-smoked Pall Malls and prescription painkillers. I am homeless. I do not live that way. Not everyone who is homeless chooses to live in filth. Plus, earlier in the arti…

I am sorry to hear you feel like that. To offer a counter perspective: I found the article to be unusually well-balanced. It was sympathetic to both her and the landlord.

Also, I don't know if the author's detailed description (probably of artistic intent) of one homeless person's life impugns on the reputation of all people who are down on their luck and temporarily homeless.

I feel like you are conflating your personal experience with hers. You may very well be morally justified in actions you have taken in your life but it is not clear to me how an article on her is an attack on you or any action you took (say remove carpets) is roughly equivalent to hers (make threats to burn down a building).

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#114

Post by jack-r-abbit »

flomo wrote: post #109
jack-r-abbit wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My thoughts too. As soon as the DBI saw that the unit was illegal, I would have assumed the occupants would have been removed almost immediately. It should not have taken that long for the owner to be able to do what he was legally required to do. But instead he was legally prevented from doing what he was legally required to do. Makes no sense.

San Francisco almost always looks the other way regarding these 'illegal' units. Many of them are in plain sight and the rent/tenancy control laws still apply. I would guess the unit must have been a serious health/safety hazard for them to do anything.

Yes, according to the article there is a long standing "don't ask, don't tell" policy. But it does say that when they are reported, the city takes serious action. And it sounds like it was a health hazard the way she was living.

The owner seemed to be caught in the middle of two incompatible laws: 1) You can't have that person living there. 2) You can't make that person leave.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#115

Post by rwmj »

eqdw wrote: post #111
jseliger wrote: post #11

Nonetheless, it’s a good time to be a Bornstein in San Francisco: in the past year alone, Ellis Act evictions have risen 170%; since 1997, there have been 3,811, and that number is constantly rising. The obvious solution to rapidly rising prices is to increase supply, as described here ( http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0078XGJXO ) or here ( http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/10/san-francis... ). I've posted both…

If people want to KEEP SAN FRANCISCO THE SAME, they could just build in other cities and amalgamate/improve the existing transit infrastructure, too. I have a working theory that people would be less obsessed with living in San Francisco if it was a mere 10-15 minute transit ride away

Or if people just worked remotely.

Broadband, people .. it works[1]

[1] Outside the US, in the US monopolies may apply.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#116

Post by eqdw »

kohanz wrote: post #4

Call me cold, but after reading this I come away with almost no sympathy for the evicted senior citizen. She comes across as very entitled.

I also feel that way, but the fact that I'm having an emotional reaction tells me that the article was probably written to trigger that. So I'm trying to ignore it.

SF's land use policies are horrendous, but anecdotes (in any direction) are not evidence for specific changes.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#117

Post by joeevans1000 »

A nice fair seeming but utterly slanted portrayal of the gentrification process. Real life is eccentric. All the polished startups and gadgets in the world won't permanently pave over the fact that focusing on the needy as disheveled and ratty is as insidious as an author can be.

This story tells the tale of a capitalist's hassles.

It doesn't go any deeper, into the real issues.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#118

Post by eqdw »

normloman wrote: post #7
TrainedMonkey wrote: post #2

"According to Inge, she pursued some of these options, but was turned off by the no-guarantee nature of the wait-lists, and felt she was entitled to stay where she was." So she voluntarily did not use resources designed to help her out. That lands credibility to landlords story. If I lived on fixed income, I would definitely move out of Bay Area somewhere cheaper.

It's not easy for people to just pack up and move. What if you've lived there your whole life? What if your friends and family lived there? What if your job was there? I guess you say "Sorry poor trash, but you gotta be this rich to live here. If you can't cut it, kindly leave the city you've known your whole life, abandon your friends, and get a new job." But that seems cold, doesn't it?

> It's not easy for people to just pack up and move. What if you've lived there your whole life? What if your friends and family lived there? What if your job was there?

I lost my job in Canada, and it was prohibitively difficult to find a software job I could sustain myself on in my home city, so I packed up and moved. I moved out of the city I had lived in my whole life. I left my friends and family and landed, alone, in SF. Because the economic landscape forced me to move.

I understand what you are trying to say, but I'm having trouble sympathizing. And, given how many H1Bs get given out every year, I suspect I'm not the only one here who feels that way

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#119

Post by wutbrodo »

bequanna wrote: post #98
zyxley wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is pretty much what I was thinking. $1300 a month isn't a lot, but I would be really surprised if there's not somewhere in the SF bay area or a nearby city (Sacramento, etc) where it couldn't cover a small apartment or studio, utilities, and normal monthly costs like groceries. As noted in other comments, it makes the focus of the article feel disingenuous as compared to people who are being priced out of their…

I don't think you have to go quite that far. $~1300 will get you a decent Studio/1BR/Shared in the East Bay (Dublin, Livermore). Not bad neighborhoods, close to BART. Go even a few miles East of these areas, rent drops rather quickly.

He wasn't talking about just rent, you have to figure in food costs and medical costs etc. Though I do agree that you can make it on that much in certain parts of the Bay.

Re: Evicted in San Francisco

#120

Post by johnvschmitt »

People just don't understand inflation/math:

"...$1.4 million; it’s a good time to sell, considering he bought the place for $627,000 in 2002."

Wow! Sounds huge right? Well, 12 years to double? That means it's a ~6% yearly increase. That's LOWER than medial bills, college education, & almost exactly what you'd get from any stock index (S&P 500) for that time period.

Post reply on HN