Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks • Hacker News Board

Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks

#131

Post by ironmagma » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 1:50 AM UTC

abxytg wrote: post #74

nathanaldensr wrote: post #35

How about this false dichotomy: > "My biggest fear is the city either has to slash spending on, say, police, or it aggressively puts up taxes on businesses to cover the shortfall and drives them out of the city," he said. It's always "we'll have to slash spending on basic city functions!" or "we'll have to raise your taxes!" but never "we'll have to cut all these unsustainable social policies!"

Name an unsustainable social policy to end

Corrupt DPW that accomplishes fuck-all, for one. Subsidizing car ownership and driving in general. Rent control is arguably unsustainable as well. Don’t forget paying people to be homeless and shoot up in the BART station. Allowing people to get on BART without paying. Anyone else who has lived in the area could probably think of half a dozen more.

Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks

#132

Post by sammalloy » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 1:52 AM UTC

julianeon wrote: post #24

I live in SF & read these articles, which all have a tone of “What is to be done?” They seem reluctant to draw unpopular conclusions, even if those conclusions are inevitable. So here, I’ll tell you what’s going to happen. Downtown as a healthy fully occupied business district is dead. Cause of death: remote work. You can wait 50 years if you want and see if it comes back, but it never will; there’s no going back. Yo…

> Downtown as a healthy fully occupied business district is dead.

You’re right, and it’s been true for a long time. Remember, it took the city approximately 30 years to remove the Embarcadero Freeway, even though its removal was first proposed in 1963. And the only reason they fully executed on this plan was because the damage from the Loma Prieta earthquake forced their hand in 1989.

Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks

#133

Post by burlesona » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 1:53 AM UTC

alexpotato wrote: post #59

ajmurmann wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's absolutely insane that the government has any say in what a building gets used for. I can see some arguments why the government has a say in constructing a building in the first place, but controlling what it's used for is just planned economy, communist hubris!

You should talk to people in Houston. It effectively has no zoning which means you get oil processing plants built next door to elementary schools. The Austrian Economists will jump in here and say that's why certain private property developments buy the equivalent of "sky rights" (or "land rights" I guess) with adjoining properties to effectively create their own zoning.

This is an incorrect urban myth. Oil plants don’t just get built wherever, and there are a lot of common sense provisions in Houston like limits on what can be built close to schools, even though the city doesn’t have zoning.

It’s flat and ugly there, but surprisingly socially vibrant, open, and interesting in large part because barriers to entry are so low and life is so affordable.

Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks

#134

Post by foogazi » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 1:53 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #68

0xFACEFEED wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not following. Postponing those taxes doesn't mean they don't need to get paid. I quickly googled it and saw "The deferment of property taxes is secured by a lien against the property which must eventually be repaid." Which sounds like a recipe for... grandpa dies, grandma can't pay property taxes so defers it for 10 years. Grandma dies and whoever inherits the home needs to be pay a massive deferment (unaffordab…

Right. Seems reasonable no? Not sure where this bizarre idea came about that people whose houses dramatically increase in value should:1) be able to avoid paying taxes on that value and 2) pass the house down, in whole, to their heirs without paying increased taxes.

If someone buys my neighbor’s house for 2X what I paid for mine, why should I pay more in taxes ?

Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks

#135

Post by more_corn » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 1:57 AM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #52

julianeon wrote: post #24

I live in SF & read these articles, which all have a tone of “What is to be done?” They seem reluctant to draw unpopular conclusions, even if those conclusions are inevitable. So here, I’ll tell you what’s going to happen. Downtown as a healthy fully occupied business district is dead. Cause of death: remote work. You can wait 50 years if you want and see if it comes back, but it never will; there’s no going back. Yo…

> Cause of death: remote work It seems premature to say this with confidence, though. Last time I saw the stats, remote work overall is down to 10% and still dropping pretty fast. Yes, prevalence is higher in the tech world, but still, we should wait until it stabilizes (especially with an incoming recession) before proclaiming that two years of remote work has changed the world.

Go walk around SoMa and report back. Return to office is not going to happen there. It was too expensive, too crowded, too unpleasant. Everyone took the opportunity presented by the pandemic to peace out.

It’s never coming back. Companies that know have been shutting their SF offices. Once it starts it’ll become a positive feedback loop. And it’s well underway.

An added wrinkle is that the city is addicted to spending. When income drops they’re in for a rude awakening. Already dysfunctional government offices will cease to function entirely. SF is headed for some dark times.

Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks

#136

Post by foogazi » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 1:58 AM UTC

Aloha wrote: post #41

0xFACEFEED wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuine question: How much of this caused Prop 13? We bought a home in the Bay Area a few years ago. We considered the pros/cons of moving out of state and one pro of staying here was Prop 13 in California. We plan to retire in this home and figured Prop 13 will help make our post-retirement living expenses negligible. I only recently had the realization that Prop 13 could cause some serious problems like cities bein…

Prop 13 is one of the legs of the stool of most dysfunction in California. Some of these are gonna spark controversy but term limits, the recall and ease of passing propositions are some of the other ones. The legislature is no longer professional enough to govern, so the people do it at the ballot box, at the behest of whom ever has the most money to spend. The fact that California is a single party state because of…

> Prop 13 is one of the legs of the stool of most dysfunction in California.

Are Prop 13 benefits for businesses still in place ?

That would be a good start - if the company is sold all its underlying California holdings get re- appraised

Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks

#137

Post by xivzgrev » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 2:03 AM UTC

Events are not going to work. I like the idea of converting office space to mixed use / residential. Kill two birds with one stone. Even tho there’s not much to do downtown per se, as neighborhood living prices keep increasing, downtown will eventually look like attractive given its central location.

Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks

#138

Post by barbacoa » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 2:05 AM UTC

alexpotato wrote: post #59

ajmurmann wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's absolutely insane that the government has any say in what a building gets used for. I can see some arguments why the government has a say in constructing a building in the first place, but controlling what it's used for is just planned economy, communist hubris!

You should talk to people in Houston. It effectively has no zoning which means you get oil processing plants built next door to elementary schools. The Austrian Economists will jump in here and say that's why certain private property developments buy the equivalent of "sky rights" (or "land rights" I guess) with adjoining properties to effectively create their own zoning.

Being down the street from oil refinery is a small price to pay for a $300k median priced housing.

Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks

#139

Post by twelvechairs » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 2:05 AM UTC

The real solution to take the edge of these sort of impacts is some kind of regional 'Bay Area' or 'NorCal' planning and funding, somewhere between the state and the cities. America is a little unique in the developed world for lacking decision bodies at this level as well as having very local ('city' based) taxation decisions [n.b. I generally think this is good].

Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks

#140

Post by scythe » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 2:07 AM UTC

yieldcrv wrote: post #2

The market is telling you everything you needed to know. People aren't in San Francisco because they don't want to be in San Francisco. Even the people that "loved San Francisco" didn't even like things in the actual city limits, talk to nearly anybody about what they like there and they'll pick an endless list of things from the Pacific Ocean to the border of Nevada. Other cities aren't like that. Red Flag 1 through…

>Even the people that "loved San Francisco" didn't even like things in the actual city limits, talk to nearly anybody about what they like there and they'll pick an endless list of things from the Pacific Ocean to the border of Nevada. Other cities aren't like that. Red Flag 1 through 10.

This isn't consistent with my experience at all. When I lived in SF, having moved to work for Salesforce, I spent a ton of time at street fairs, nightclubs, museums, concerts, parks, etc, and that's before I get to the food. Most of my friends seemed to be doing the same.

I mean, I have nothing against Lake Tahoe -- it's great -- but you could get that by living in Albuquerque, and the snow to jerry ratio is a lot better.