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

#161

Post by refurb » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 2:36 AM UTC

foogazi wrote: post #134

refurb wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ?

Because your house is now more valuable and as a general rule progressive taxes are best where those with more money pay more tax.

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

#162

Post by jeffbee » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 2:38 AM UTC

ironmagma wrote: post #131

abxytg wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Allowing people to get on BART without paying" is probably San Francisco's least important problem, as compliance with BART fares is > 99% among BART riders, which puts it above the federal income tax (~85%) and far ahead of parking meters (Also FYI BART is not a city agency and it has its own police force.

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

#163

Post by inamberclad » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 2:39 AM UTC

burlesona wrote: post #133

alexpotato wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Seconded. I've been here for two years and I'm moving out because it's hot, humid, ugly, and car culture is brutal. However, it's a place where it's easy to get your feet under you and live a good life with interesting things. However, I can't recommend the suburbs - especially Clear Lake. They're the worst, most inescapably bland places I've ever seen.

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

#164

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 2:40 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.

[deleted]

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

#165

Post by rmason » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 2:42 AM UTC

pupdogg wrote: post #94

charlieflowers wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you say San Francisco is the new Detroit? Something like a mill town?

"2021 Downtown Detroit is cleaner and safer than Downtown San Francisco" - Peter Santenello on YouTube! I agree with him. Reference: https://youtu.be/GnFGYqj2UQA?t=272

As someone pre-COVID regularly travelled between Detroit and SF I'd have to agree. Rents for really nice apartments, places with doormen and gyms, are 60-70% less than really basic ones in SF. They're also less likely to raise rents for awhile as there's a ton of new apartments that will be available in the next 12-24 months downtown.

I've also never seen a tent on the sidewalk in Detroit. South of Grand Circus Park is a big startup area. To be fair I have found trying to cross the park in the evening to reach restaurants on the other side I've quite often had to deal with very aggressive panhandling homeless people. I've never encountered this problem elsewhere in the city.

Here's another video by the same guy where he meets an ex-convict who is building a real estate empire one house at a time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCmfMnXwaWw

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

#166

Post by eropple » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 2:43 AM UTC

librish wrote: post #99

0xFACEFEED wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea doesn't sound that bizarre to me. I'm not an expert or anything but as people grow older their earning potential slows down too. What if the neighborhood grows in value even though the retired homeowner hasn't made any changes to their home? It sounds reasonable to me that a retiree with a conservative investment portfolio that is barely over/under inflation should be able to live out their remaining life in…

Yes that's the idea? They get to live out the rest of their years, and then their heirs pay the deferred taxes, selling the house if needed.

This is a bad situation if you want long-term neighborhood and cultural cohesion, though, because it encourages turnover (particularly among less affluent groups).

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

#167

Post by littlexsparkee » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 2:44 AM UTC

olliej wrote: post #149

I live in Oakland, so have awareness but obviously not direct exposure to SF's current D.A. problems - it seems like SF voted in a person they thought would be a DA that would reduce excessive prison, juvenile->adult conversion, better diversion to mental health support, etc. It turned out what they actually got was a DA that literally did not do his job, and just had literally everyone arrested put back on the stree…

The gap for the recall has narrowed to 55-45 as the remaining ballots got counted https://sfelections.sfgov.org/june-7-2022-election-results-s...

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

#168

Post by inamberclad » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 2:44 AM UTC

eszaq wrote: post #47

mc32 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would people want to live in relative expensive housing if there are no jobs in the city for them? Converted apartments are not going to be "affordable" (by say the likes of students, and people just out of college not in finance or tech. Once the white collar workers leave, there is less demand for service workers to live there. Sure maybe some salaried workers like in emergency services and policing might choos…

With more housing, the relative expense decreases, and some people will move in just because they like the bustle of living in a city. Those are also the kind of people who will patronize local establishments. Years ago, the center of the action in "Silicon Valley" was actually in the geographical valley, in the south bay. The south bay is way different from SF - safe and sterile. Some people would move up to SF and…

I think it's more that the barriers to entry for tech businesses have plummeted. In the olden days (80's, 90's, etc), you didn't have the internet as your force multiplier.

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

#169

Post by refurb » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 2:45 AM UTC

eropple wrote: post #166

librish wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes that's the idea? They get to live out the rest of their years, and then their heirs pay the deferred taxes, selling the house if needed.

This is a bad situation if you want long-term neighborhood and cultural cohesion, though, because it encourages turnover (particularly among less affluent groups).

I mean if people can defer taxes until they die you’re not increasing turnover at all.

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

#170

Post by Aloha » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 2:47 AM UTC

zeruch wrote: post #86

Aloha wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Terms limits are a red herring. They punish good and bad candidates, and don't actually help the problems with the elected class: campaign funding and competitive districts/gerrymandering. Wanna know what its a "single party state"? Because one of the major parties, up until Pete Wilson, acted like a real party, then became a caricature (the GOP had 40+ percent of the state and registrants for ages, which is how guys…

Compare the quality of legislation passed before term limits to after (the last real structural reforms to state government were before term limits), I remember the difference. The current system encourages "make a name for yourself than move on to bigger and better things" and prevents the legislature acting as a base of political power - that gets in the way of long term thinking.

To the rest of your comment - I think big tent parties are good, but not ones that require ideological fealty the way current parties do, you can't build a durable majority with left social issues, a weird mashup or left wing and right wing economics and "progressive" requirement that everyone hew to proper "optics".

That's a recipe for never fixing any of the actual problems, with the added benefit of giving your base and activists plenty of ideological wars that can never be won.