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

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

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 272 posts

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

#151

Post by diogenescynic »

San Francisco is self-destructing and sabotaging its own success. Instead of fixing crime and quality of life issues, they've actively made them worse or gas-lighted residents and done nothing at all. I've always thought it was insane paying the prices of SF to live in squalor and near so much crime. BART is also a completely miserable experience. I don't think anyone wants to commute into SF or live there if they don't absolutely have to. Maybe during the next recession, employers will have more leverage to require more in-office work, but I definitely think employees/talent who can work remote are going to when possible. I know I am and that I never plan to commute back to SF or another South Bay campus ever again. I'll take a pay cut to keep working remotely if I have to.

If SF wanted to clean things up, they'd have cops walking a beat in the Tenderloin--something I never say in the 12 years I lived there. I think the lack of any political competition has led to politicians who don't give a shit about what's best for residents and can just coast off the vote blue no matter who mentality.

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

#152

Post by bsder »

duped wrote: post #129
hintymad wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cause of death: remote work. Is this contradictory to the reason that startups are funded in S.F proper? I remember many articles and social media posts were saying along the line that people chose to work in S.F because they loved bustling city life. Yet the city is doomed because people wanted to work remotely en masse?

Startups are founded in Northern California because of easy access to VC money and an extremely strong talent base. I don't know what the numbers are but I would be surprised if there are more startups in SF proper and not San Jose and its suburbs (the real economic heart of the Bay Area, honestly) and out in the East Bay. San Fransisco is fun but a big pain in the ass to get to and live in, even compared to the rest…

> Startups are founded in Northern California because of easy access to VC money and an extremely strong talent base.

And the illegality of non-competes. And the fact that your off-hours IP is yours.

One thing that tech people are forgetting is that California law may not apply to them in remote situations and there are a bunch of protections that you get when you are subject to California law.

If you don't think the corporate lawyers are already working this angle, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you ...

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

#153

Post by diogenescynic »

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!"

SF spends literally hundreds of millions on the 7,000-8,000 homeless. If they need to cut programs, that should be the first. It's not only excessive spending, but it's totally unaccountable. They could just buy the homeless RVs in Bakersfield for less than they spend to leave a bunch of junkies on the street and still have overdoses that exceed COVID deaths.

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

#154

Post by trashface »

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…

In-office work can make a comeback. All big tech has to do is tell new college grads "you have to work in our office." They will agree. After a few years and all the remote workers are sidelined and not important.

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

#155

Post by littlexsparkee »

systemvoltage wrote: post #121
littlexsparkee wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

850,000 living there against their will, I presume? What is it about the city that makes people froth at the mouth? The ridiculous characterizations I read don't match what I see day-to-day at all

CBS News. San Francisco Luxury Condo Overlooks City's Worst Squalor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GbcWOGyuq0 CBS News. KPIX Special Report: San Francisco's Tenderloin – A State of Emergency https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuWeMl2lCMM ABC News. Here's why one of San Francisco's top officers says crime is here to stay https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4112HGOCTQ KRON 4. 70% of San Francisco residents say quality of…

If the poll routinely says 40% will leave and only 6.7% do when a pandemic makes the benefits of being here moot for 2 years, you should throw the poll out the window. What's more, labor force data shows most of those have returned. What is your agenda? Why do you people care so much? I'm well aware of the city's problems but there's no nuance in these discussions and it's tiring.

I'm happy we'll have a new DA and hopefully the city will also make folks get mental health help when needed and get serious about building housing (i.e. get out of the way).

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

#156

Post by inamberclad »

sammalloy wrote: post #132
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.

Not to mention that the Embarcadero freeway was a horrific blight on the walkability of the city and our use of the waterfront. Now that it's gone, absolutely nobody misses it. The same might be said in the future about revitalizing downtown around residential life, but that's not enough to get a city to take major action. I don't know what my point is here, except that positive change can be slow.

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

#157

Post by bscphil »

trashface wrote: post #154
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…

In-office work can make a comeback. All big tech has to do is tell new college grads "you have to work in our office." They will agree. After a few years and all the remote workers are sidelined and not important.

This strikes me as a very strange take. Isn't it like saying "The 6 day workweek can make a comeback. All employers have to do is..."

The issue is that once a particular practice in relations between capital and labor becomes ingrained, conditions of competition make it very difficult to shift the balance. You would effectively have to have a non-competition agreement between big tech companies over this clause, because highly paid workers can and will leave for perks like remote work.

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

#158

Post by epistasis »

Bud wrote: post #148
epistasis wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of the extremely wealthy people I know are in favor of maaaive death taxes, of pretty much all wealth. However, none of these people inherited their money, and came from humble backgrounds, so my anecdata may not represent many of the wealthy.

Not to accuse them of being dishonest, but it also costs them nothing to say that, loudly and often, in a political environment where they know it's not going to happen.

These are private and personal discussions, ranging over many areas of politics where we disagree and agree. I have no reason to doubt them. Even with a massive tax eliminating inheritance, their children will lead charmed lives. They are more afraid of a dysfunctional family than their children suffering from material wants.

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

#159

Post by kelnos »

abakker wrote: post #123
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…

Yeah…and while prices are still so high and the state of downtown is still so poor, it’s a tough sell for residential, too. SF isn’t worth what it thinks it is, and that’s the trouble. (Bias: I moved out in 2020, even though I was rent controlled at 2012 prices. The city was great at 2012 prices, but we knew leaving meant never coming back. Even so, QOL has improved a lot since leaving.)

> SF isn’t worth what it thinks it is, and that’s the trouble.

Isn't that by definition false? If living here was worth less, rents and home prices would drop. Sure, rents dipped quite a bit during the pandemic, but they've recovered somewhat, possibly completely. Home prices didn't change much. And yes, I know that these costs are propped up by things like zoning, the city planning process, NIMBYism, etc., but that doesn't really matter: there's still -- somehow -- enough demand to keep prices as high as they are.

(Bias: I bought a condo in the Dogpatch in 2020, right before the pandemic hit. I've been really happy with our QOL since moving, even during the pandemic. The neighborhood has mostly recovered, with only a few businesses closing permanently.)

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

#160

Post by [deleted] »

leetcrew wrote: post #143
foogazi wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

because property tax is based on the value of the property, and your property is worth more too? a different way of phrasing the question: is it fair that your new neighbor pays twice as much as you to support city services, just because they bought their place more recently?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN