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

211–220 of 272 posts

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

#211

Post by duped »

bsder wrote: post #152
duped wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I mean that just plays into the talent pool - people who are willing and able to join or found a startup.

While I think what you're talking about is a big deal and the biggest mistake every state that wants a tech industry fails at (yet New York, Massachusetts, and DC/Virginia seem to do ok), a bigger one is the fundamental culture of Californian tech. Most other parts of this country, people are too scared to take the risk to leave the "good" job for a startup. It's a negative feedback loop that dampens any chance of growth. California is the one place where people feel safe enough to ditch a good job for a cool one, and it pays in spades for the state.

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

#212

Post by olliej »

littlexsparkee wrote: post #167
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...

oh sigh :-/

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

#213

Post by tzs »

refurb wrote: post #161
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 your house is now more valuable and as a general rule progressive taxes are best where those with more money pay more tax.

Your house becoming more valuable doesn’t mean you have more money.

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

#214

Post by foogazi »

refurb wrote: post #161
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 your house is now more valuable and as a general rule progressive taxes are best where those with more money pay more tax.

My house going up or down in value doesn’t make me richer or poorer

I could see the point of your argument if I sell and make a profit - but before I do that my QOL within my house is not affected

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

#215

Post by foogazi »

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?

> 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?

My neighbor paying 2x what I paid has no effect on the cost of city services

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

#216

Post by wolverine876 »

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. 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.

Remote work reduces demand for downtown office space, but where is evidence that it reduces it below supply?

Demand was very high - downtown office space was very expensive. Many businesses that would love to open up or move downtown previously couldn't. Now they can.

Cheap inputs like office space, in a great city with great transit, etc., with proximity to other businesses and services, is a perfect place for entrepreneurs and startups. This economic change could unexpectedly, at the height of SV costs, create a low-cost community of startups right in SF.

It's speculative, but so is the doom and gloom. The first who see the opportunity when everyone else is wailing and gnashing their teeth will be the ones to cash in. Maybe me!

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

#217

Post by nemothekid »

Gigachad wrote: post #87
nemothekid wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's strange that crime is simultaneously all the media ever talks about while also being elephant the media ignores. San Francisco is constantly lambasted mad max where the walgreens owner is being shaken down by the local crime syndicate but it's somehow an open secret that you only read about in top secret government files.

It's both. Some media spends every minute talking about it and some will completely ignore the topic even when its central to the topic being discussed. Also with social media, most people are seeing this themselves and bypassing commercial news.

It can't be both; crime cannot simultaneously be up and down.

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

#218

Post by nemothekid »

diogenescynic wrote: post #178
nemothekid wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's strange that crime is simultaneously all the media ever talks about while also being elephant the media ignores. San Francisco is constantly lambasted mad max where the walgreens owner is being shaken down by the local crime syndicate but it's somehow an open secret that you only read about in top secret government files.

Media isn't monolithic. Local media tends to ignore or downplay crime--I think in part because the writers are either insulated from it or have their own political biases. National media plays up the crime because they like to use SF as a whipping horse to say "see don't be like SF or your city will have full blown anarchy". SF is actually a huge anchor on national progressives because republicans can always point to…

Your reasoning for local media to downplay crime is much weaker than your reasoning for national media to play it up.

>it's all about scolding people and identity politics to distract from meaningful policies like universal healthcare, elder/child-care, etc.

You've described national politics in the united states; it's not unique to SF liberals at all.

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

#219

Post by yieldcrv »

yieldcrv wrote: post #10
epistasis wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't make any sense at all when you look at the prices of real estate. People want to be there, but they are not allowed due to pricing reducing demand.

> The transit system’s looming deficit has given rise to whispers of a new regional tax to fill the gap. This is a reference to the rental prices. I can see how I didn't make that clear. SF fell the hardest out of metropolitan areas and has grown the slowest. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-21/san-franc...

Wrong clipboard item, other quote is a reference to rental prices:

> All that masked by actual geographic scarcity exacerbated by artificial scarcity to make the high prices seem like there was something to covet?

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

#220

Post by yieldcrv »

scythe wrote: post #140
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…

Glad you had a good time, I liked those things more in other major US cities
Post reply on HN