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

261–270 of 272 posts

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

#261

Post by Aloha »

zeruch wrote: post #260
Aloha wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What did Schwarzenegger reform?

He himself did not reform too much, but not for lack of tying. In the end one could easily argue that he helped mainline numerous ideas that had been previously flat out obstructed by the GOP: redistricting guidelines/gerrymandering (wanting to tae the districting process out of party hands altogether), environmental efforts (Global Warming Solutions Act), proposed marijuana legalization, opposed Bush IIs border fenc…

Yeah, that was more or less my point. He was a decent governor, but he didn't fix (or really attempt to fix) the structural issues in Sacramento, I do think reasonably highly about him. Though I voted to retain Davis, Davis lost his office because of how bad he is at retail politics.

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

#262

Post by dragonwriter »

Aloha wrote: post #255
dragonwriter wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bring a member of a any political party requires you to hew to certain ideological perspective No, it mostly doesn't, except in fairly strong party systems (which the US doesn't have), and even then it usually only applies to being a member of the party-in-government, not the party-in-the-electorate.

You cannot be a Dem or a Repub pol and survive a primary reliably without hewing to certain ideological precepts - there are notable exceptions, Cuellar of Texas and Collins (to a lesser extent) for example - Even with them, hewing too far outside of the ideological precepts your voters have will find you losing a primary. The real root of most issues with our system is the primary, This could be remedied by either g…

> The real root of most issues with our system is the primary,

No, it is the single-winner FPTP general, particularly for seats in legislative bodies. This has been studied fairly extensively in comparative government, the narrow range of choices is the product of a system that effectively avoids proportionality by favoring a narrow range of outcomes. “Primaries” aren't the problem, and most solutions that try to avoid them or reform them while retaining the real source of the problem would either have no effect or actually further reduce meaningful choice.

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

#263

Post by abakker »

kelnos wrote: post #159
abakker wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I mean, I'm not shorting SF real estate, but no, valuation can be wrong and also not tautological. There are lots of reasons in SF that prices don't adjust - e.g. rent control and the tax advantage of unoccupied buildings vs accepting a permanently lower rent. There's lots of reasons that value doesn't adjust quickly.

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

#264

Post by eropple »

refurb wrote: post #259
eropple wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Marginalized communities that have seen home values skyrocket? Illiquid property value isn't the same thing as having money , so...yes? I mean, if you want every neighborhood in every urban area to be tech and finance bros, maybe this is a good idea, but most people would disagree with the premise you're pushing.

Property value isn’t illiquid.

It absolutely is illiquid if you do not want to destroy the composition of an area. It cannot be converted without doing damage to the community in which it exists.

When the market is tech and finance bros, all neighborhoods and all stock will become tech and finance bro'd. That's a bad thing for that community and--uh--society at large.

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

#265

Post by yencabulator »

blindmute wrote: post #248
clpm4j wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keith Rabois and David Sacks and all of the other billionaire VCs who love to whine and complain about SF on twitter are nowhere near the crime (which is totally blown out of proportion). These guys own $20-30MM homes in Pacific Heights which is one of the poshest neighborhoods in the world. They're complaining because they're used to being able to pay for perfection - perfect dinners, perfect vacations, assistants a…

One of the highest property crime rates in the country is blowing it out of proportion? It's factually, actually, truly a crime ridden shithole; as much of one as a US city can be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...

Your source seems to say SF is #37 of 100, when sorted by crime per population.

Large cities with crime rate higher than SF, according to your source: Detroit, Baltimore, Memphis, Indianapolis, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Dallas, Los Angeles, Phoenix.

Your source says St Louis has a crime rate 2.9x higher.

Maybe consider that you just hate SF, for your own personal reasons?

(And your source is based on voluntary reporting, so there's huge biases there. SF sounds like the kind of place that could manage to push for more transparency..)

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

#266

Post by nkrisc »

ajmurmann wrote: post #256
nkrisc wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok I’m starting a pig farm next door to you.

Won't happen, since the area is too desirable and building a high of farm there isn't economically viable unless you are just gonna do it make your point which would be an extremely rare event we shouldn't optimize for.

Ah, so it's only a problem that should affect poor people who live in undesirable areas.

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

#267

Post by rcpt »

tzs wrote: post #249
epistasis wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like saying "just because people buying TSLA shares at 2x what I paid for them doesn't mean I have more money." Of course not, stock shares or real estate are not money. But they are wealth.

But note that when your wealth goes up because others have driven up the price of TSLA shares you are not taxed on that wealth gain. You are only taxed on the money you get when you sell the shares. If the price of TSLA shares goes to 2x and then later back to 1x before you sell the shares, and then you sell them, you have no gain and no tax. It is generally considered to not be a good idea in tax theory to tax thing…

Unlike land within our borders, TSLA isn't finite in supply and something we need to directly compete with each other for.

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

#268

Post by rcpt »

0xFACEFEED wrote: post #69
alexpotato wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New Jersey, a famously high residential property tax state, has the senior "tax freeze" statue in many towns.

Just did a little research out of curiosity and it looks like they've been trying to kill it.

Homeowners trying to kill property taxes is like a law of physics

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

#269

Post by blindmute »

yencabulator wrote: post #265
blindmute wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the highest property crime rates in the country is blowing it out of proportion? It's factually, actually, truly a crime ridden shithole; as much of one as a US city can be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...

Your source seems to say SF is #37 of 100, when sorted by crime per population. Large cities with crime rate higher than SF, according to your source: Detroit, Baltimore, Memphis, Indianapolis, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Dallas, Los Angeles, Phoenix. Your source says St Louis has a crime rate 2.9x higher. Maybe consider that you just hate SF, for your own personal reasons? (And your source is based on voluntary…

37 is violent crime. When you sort by property crime, the type of crime I wrote in my post, it is number 4. Maybe consider that you didn't read the source carefully for your own personal reasons?

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

#270

Post by Aloha »

dragonwriter wrote: post #262
Aloha wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot be a Dem or a Repub pol and survive a primary reliably without hewing to certain ideological precepts - there are notable exceptions, Cuellar of Texas and Collins (to a lesser extent) for example - Even with them, hewing too far outside of the ideological precepts your voters have will find you losing a primary. The real root of most issues with our system is the primary, This could be remedied by either g…

> The real root of most issues with our system is the primary, No, it is the single-winner FPTP general, particularly for seats in legislative bodies. This has been studied fairly extensively in comparative government, the narrow range of choices is the product of a system that effectively avoids proportionality by favoring a narrow range of outcomes. “Primaries” aren't the problem, and most solutions that try to avo…

Low turnout for primaries produces non majoritarian choices, while I'm interested in proportional representation systems but who picks the candidates?

Also, realistically we vote too often, and on too many things - the last time I voted, I had no less than 26 offices to vote for, I'm a reasonably well informed voter, and I had no idea who 3/4's of those people are and in some cases, what their office did.

I'm if the opinion we don't need more choice, when so few people show up to do the choosing.

Im interested on your ideas to solve it.

Post reply on HN