Live data from Hacker News

In San Francisco, even $180k tech salaries are no longer enough

nytimes.com

191–194 of 194 posts

Re: In San Francisco, even $180k tech salaries are no longer enough

#191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I’m sure eliminating rent control will somehow make the city more affordable, not (catastrophically) less.

If you'd like to type out your priors and why believe yourself you be right, I'd love to hear them. It's a complex topic and rent control's second order effect is that housing is going empty. People are living in tents when there are vacant apartments. That's a system's failure.

Thing is, social media discussions on the subject are completely pointless. No one ever changes their mind and nothing gets resolved. But I'll give my spiel anyway:

I live in rent-controlled housing in SF. When I was apartment hunting circa 2023, it was fairly easy to find rent-controlled listings if you were diligent. In objective terms, my rent is high, but it's also locked in. Rent can only increase a few percentage points a year.

In the past year, a bunch of wealthy AI workers moved into the city, increasing rents catastrophically. You could find people in the SF subreddit complaining with disturbing regularity about 50% rent spikes and similar. We had new tenants move in to the upstairs apartment recently and they're literally paying $2000/m more than us for the same floor plan. If we had to pay the same amount — if our rent increased arbitrarily due to circumstances outside our control — I think we'd be kicked out of the city. It's just not possible to build a stable, adult life unless you have some security around your housing expenses (or you're filthy rich).

Rent control detractors suggest that eliminating rent control will lead to lower housing costs eventually. That does not help me in the present. Why would I support a policy that will kick me out of my house today, replace everyone in my historically working class neighborhood with millionaires, and then maybe, many years down the line, lead to lower rents? (With a giant "citation needed" on that argument to boot.) It's a non-starter.

Fortunately, building more housing does not require eliminating rent control. We can have both. And if enough housing gets built, rent goes down anyway and rent control largely becomes a moot point.

I regularly hear about acquaintances getting kicked out of their apartments elsewhere in the country due to sudden rent spikes and thank my lucky stars we're not subject to that horror.

Re: In San Francisco, even $180k tech salaries are no longer enough

#192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can’t let everyone choose to live in the same place. There has to be some mechanism, hopefully market-based but it could also be a residency system, that ensures people spread out and live in different places. Even if you could get SF to support a billion people in living space, I’m sure infrastructure and resources like water would cut things off before it got to that many people.

There absolutely does not have to be in mechanism to spread people out. It is cheaper to provide infrastructure to people who are much closer together than it is to provide the same infrastructure to people who are spread farther out. There's been a website for the last 20 years called Strong Towns that talks about this a lot if you're interested in learning more.

Building up isn’t cheaper at some point. Around 30 stories is the economic limit right now when you consider fire safety, with anything higher reserved for splurges.

Having lived this in China, the economics get wonky in dense cities. I’ve never seen the built up area with lots of 30 stories being cheaper than 4 story blocks. And that is in the most zone-agnostic build happy country on earth.

Re: In San Francisco, even $180k tech salaries are no longer enough

#193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, I see you are a fan of the Kowloon Walled City. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City

There's a great book called "City of Darkness" about it - a lot of what we believe about it was a campaign funded by the Hong Kong government to turn public opinion about it negative because they wanted the land back from China. Most of the reason there were any problems there at all was that there was no legal jurisdiction over it, there are still buildings in Hong Kong that have nearly that density with none of the…

There was no zoning, no fire safety inspections, no fire safety, haphazard infrastructure, lack of water to drink and clean with, etc…it was basically an unregulated slum (which you can still find in many countries).

Hong Kong has density sure. But no one would call it cheap density.

Re: In San Francisco, even $180k tech salaries are no longer enough

#194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have zoning in New Zealand and it wasn't started by segregation. Zoning has other reasons than racism. Oversimplifying things down to single causes is an error of thinking.

You've never heard of papakainga? Zoning and land use code in New Zealand is one of the better examples of structural racism. In housing law in the United States, we've figured out that because people often use feelings rather than clear statements for their reasoning, we had to pay attention to disparate impact, rather than discriminatory intent. What you'll find is that in nearly every country, zoning and similar l…

I think you're talking about something different.

My context is discriminatory urban zoning (à la exclusionary zoning or redlining in the US).

I am not sure there are any examples of that for urban zoning in New Zealand. Please enlighten me if you know better.

I agree there is plenty of history of terrible treatment of maori and their land in NZ, but that is a different topic and not relevant. I admit I am ignorant about the history of urban planning in NZ.

Post reply on HN