171–180 of 376 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every self preservation instinct is something each person is ultimately responsible for, but that doesn't mean that is the only dial that can be adjusted to solve the issue. Some people really do worry too much. Some areas really could be cleaned up so that random people feel comfortable moving through them without threat of assault.
> Some areas really could be cleaned up Cleaned? People who are homeless are dirt?
The non-visible homeless (people down on their luck, to an approximation) get mentally sorted into the vast category of "that's unfortunate but it doesn't affect me directly," which might influence people's votes or charitable donations, but doesn't arouse much passion for most of us. By contrast, the visible homeless are a visceral inconvenience, even a danger, so people feel strongly about how that problem is addre…
I'm guessing that you misunderstand the threats, and are much more likely to be hit by someone in an SUV. I've spent lots and lots of time in cities; I've never had a problem with a homeless person.
How about walking with your pregnant wife past someone who is splitting his time yelling at the sky and scratching his crotch from the inside of his pants?
Sure, in both scenarios we weren't physically harmed, but it certainly made us feel unsafe and uncomfortable. It's not something that I think we should all just get used to.
There's also a good argument that rent/housing affects more of our broader lives than anything else - often called "The Housing Theory of Everything". https://www.worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-e... If you're interested in helping the housing problem across the US, I encourage you to check out: YIMBY Action who does local activism across the US, and particularly active in SF Bay Area and CA. https://y…
LVT now. Truly the solution to all our economic problems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was renting until just a few years ago and I never had a lease longer than 12 months, and it was actually difficult to find one longer than that. I'm not sure where you live, but in a lot of places, a landlord refusing to allow a lease to go month-to-month is illegal.
The term of the lease isn't materially longer than 12 months. (Mine actually is >12 mo, but not by a whole lot.) But at the end of the (say) 12 months, you sign the next lease, for another (say) 12 months, or move out. (The rent invariably goes up, at this point.) It's at those individual lease boundaries that I (rather technically) have the opportunity to go month-to-month, if I want to be bled dry. My note about it…
Is that wrong? Do you think you are entitled to live in someone else's property, at a price below what others in the market would pay, for as long as you like?
There has to be some balance here. Someone is contracting to let you live in their property. If they don't get something out of it, why should they do it? Why would anyone be a landlord? And if nobody wanted to be a landlord, wouldn't it be harder for you to find a place to live in your price range?
Imagine you're a municipality like San Francisco. You control all of the zoning regulations, and many of the permitting requirements. You have a AA+ credit rating, and even in today's higher rate environment, you can borrow billions of dollars at 6%. You already own oodles of land. You can build to whatever height you want within reason, because you control the zoning, and you even control many of the ordinances that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, the thing I always say about the people who complain about tech workers and gentrification in a place like San Francisco is like, look, if you can't figure out how to gain from an influx of wealthy, highly-educated, low-criminality, nerdy tech workers, then that's really on you. What a gift! Any city would be lucky to have that "problem." You have to actively work to make that a negative (by, say, refusing to a…
Maybe San Francisco is just not suitable any more? There's nothing magic about SF's geography that makes it a tech hub. It's not a mining town that needs to be next to coal or minerals, or a ski resort town that needs some mountains and snow. It's based on work that can literally be done anywhere. Hollywood, after all, was just a dusty desert town that became the hub of the movie business because it was easier to mov…
First, yes, yes there is something magic about SF's geography, it's the closest major city to the largest VC hub in the world. These companies thrive on young talent that prefers to live in a city. It's not dissimilar to the gold rush 170 years ago when you think about it.
Second, what do you mean "San Francisco is just not suitable any more"? The tech companies and their employees are the least impacted by rising housing costs. By and large they are doing alright, so what is their incentive to uproot everything and randomly go roll the dice somewhere else which would A) not have a critical mass of VC in their backyard and B) will offer no guarantee of not reacting exactly the same as SF.
Keep in mind, 20 years ago there was barely any tech in San Francisco proper. Sure there tech employees who chose to live there and suffer the commute to the peninsula, as is their prerogative being free individuals residing in the US. The reason tech moved in was because SF offered tax breaks—they wanted their piece of the tax revenue and daily spending from well-to-do tech workers. If the city really felt tech being there was the problem they have a lot of levers (eg. raise taxes, zoning changes, etc) to push it out. Of course they don't want to do that because it would cause far more economic harm than good. NIMBYs are of course willing to entertain the charade of successful tech companies as the scapegoat because it keeps their home values sky high while deflecting to the amorphous "tech companies", who in fact they have zero control over policy and at best marginal interest in addressing the issue at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe San Francisco is just not suitable any more? There's nothing magic about SF's geography that makes it a tech hub. It's not a mining town that needs to be next to coal or minerals, or a ski resort town that needs some mountains and snow. It's based on work that can literally be done anywhere. Hollywood, after all, was just a dusty desert town that became the hub of the movie business because it was easier to mov…
> There's nothing magic about SF's geography It includes two of the world's top ten universities, incredible natural beauty there and nearby, excellent weather (locals complain, as locals do, but it's wonderful), and all the resources and people are gathered there. It's hard to imagine the return on investment of moving.
Companies won’t keep increasing total comp for junior engineers in SF when they can grow their offices in other cheaper cities instead.
You need a robust pipeline of junior folks and SF is increasingly strangling that pipeline and other cheaper cities are as attractive as SF once was.
Because where would you rather be if you're poor and homeless? Detroit or San Francisco? Philly or La? I know where I'd rather be in such a situation!
Add to poverty drug addiction and poor life choices and you have basically nixed any chances of renting a place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> government is run by and for the benefit of the established land owners Do San Francisco’s renters fail to turn out to vote? (Serious question.)
Alternative question: * do San Francisco renters turn out to Town Hall meetings, local elections, pester their representatives and put in as much #not-bribery as landowners?
Imagine you're a municipality like San Francisco. You control all of the zoning regulations, and many of the permitting requirements. You have a AA+ credit rating, and even in today's higher rate environment, you can borrow billions of dollars at 6%. You already own oodles of land. You can build to whatever height you want within reason, because you control the zoning, and you even control many of the ordinances that…
Trillions of dollars have been minted here, but you wouldn’t know it just by driving around. Public services are abysmal. Horrible public transportation.
In another 20 years if the winds shift to some other place in the country/world people will look back at Silicon Valley and ask how it could manage not to thrive, and the inescapable answer is greed and incompetence.