San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash • Hacker News Board

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#271

Post by purim » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 6:49 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #249

purim wrote: post #213

Still waiting for Vancouver real estate to follow suit but feels weird that in Vancouver its' socially acceptable for people without homes single out a certain ethnic group every cycle. Used to Japanese in the 1980s, Hong Kongers in 90s, Taiwanese in 00s and Chinese in 10s. This type of scapegoating doesn't seem prevalent in other real estate markets like California, their money is correct on high wage disparity betw…

> In both markets there is surprising silence on REITs and corporations buying up residential living spaces and flipping it. Wouldn't be surprised if those special interest groups also own/influence local media as well. I imagine that they're all financing YIMBY organizations, whose aims would do nothing but increase the value of their holdings.

Makes sense, buy wholesale, arbitrage, and deflect blame by creating scapegoats through mass media.

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#272

Post by rileyphone » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 6:50 PM UTC

coryrc wrote: post #163

silicon2401 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely forgot about the fire thing, and that only strengthens my argument/stance. The Triangle fire was a terrible tragedy in American history during which a lot of women died not even because of lack of windows, but because doors and windows were barred. Now imagine how many people would be at risk if they didn't even have windows in the first place.

The windows in a 50-story skyscraper are not very useful for escape.

No, they are not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impending_Death

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#273

Post by toss1 » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 6:50 PM UTC

darth_avocado wrote: post #127

The city officials are asleep at the wheel. Blame it on remote work and pandemic as much as you want, but the reality is that the city was in decline even before that. It is too expensive to live in the city. It is too expensive to commute to the city. It is too expensive to feed yourself in the city. Crime is rampant. Drug use and filth is everywhere. Most importantly city has been hostile to tech and business owner…

Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded.

  - - Yogi Berra

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#274

Post by happyopossum » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 6:50 PM UTC

scarby2 wrote: post #223

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Housing is an investment that should only go up in price" will eventually kill any market It doesn't have to. Housing can be affordable while going up in nominal terms. Neither do I think most San Francisco homeowners think about housing supply strategically. They're pissed off about a specific view being blocked. Or construction noise. Or their area's average rent going up. (?!?) Alternatively, they're comfortabl…

> Housing can be affordable while going up in nominal terms. Housing cannot be affordable if it goes up in real terms though. In an ideal world house prices would increase 1:1 with wage growth from an affordable baseline. There are 2 ways to fix it: either crash the market or introduce policies which will cause either stagnation or below inflation growth in housing prices for at least 20 or 30 years.

> In an ideal world house prices would increase 1:1 with wage growth from an affordable baseline.

There's only one way to do that - a command economy, with all housing owned and doled out by the government. That just doesn't work, anywhere, ever.

You have to work very hard to ignore the fact that some places are more desirable than others to live in, and sometimes those desirable places change. Also, different people have different priorities, desires, and ability to afford both for their housing. How do you accommodate that pressure without 100% control over the entire real estate market?

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#275

Post by onlyrealcuzzo » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 6:50 PM UTC

foobiekr wrote: post #231

inamberclad wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drug use isn't associated with crime and filth until we make it so via harsh city policies. I would, however, like someone to clean the 4 different instances of poop I saw on my 3 block walk this morning.

Drug use is absolutely associated with erratic behavior including violence. I am pro-decriminalization but we need to be honest about the effects of chronic drug usage, especially methamphetamine.

> especially methamphetamine.

Why especially Meth and not Heroin or other opioids?

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#276

Post by steve76 » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 6:51 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #240

buscoquadnary wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> According to the data, crime in SF is lower that it was a few years ago: https://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-San-Francisco-Californ ... Every time I see something like this I will point out that during the anti-police movement that happened a while back, many police started reducing their activity either because they were told to, because prosecutes would refuse to prosecute, or because they didn't want to be the…

This theory falls down when you look at murders. They're down with all the others on that link, and they're highly unlikely to go unreported.

No post body was provided.

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#277

Post by AlexandrB » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 6:51 PM UTC

buscoquadnary wrote: post #212

bluejekyll wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Crime is rampant According to the data, crime in SF is lower that it was a few years ago: https://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-San-Francisco-Californ... > Drug use and filth is everywhere. Voters can’t seem to wrap their head around better housing policies to get people off the street. It’s disappointing, the entire Bay Area is guilty of this.

> According to the data, crime in SF is lower that it was a few years ago: https://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-San-Francisco-Californ ... Every time I see something like this I will point out that during the anti-police movement that happened a while back, many police started reducing their activity either because they were told to, because prosecutes would refuse to prosecute, or because they didn't want to be the…

Possibly true if you look at property crimes and misdemeanours. But you can't "hide a body" or fail to report an arson. Major crimes are down too: https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/stay-safe/crime-data/crim...

The narrative that reported crime is down because of underreporting is very credulous of LEOs, because it's in the interest of police departments embroiled in controversy to make things look bad to justify their own budgets/jobs. Hence all the news stories about how SF is a crime-ridden hellhole. However, the police department's own numbers contradict this and they are forced to lean on "vibes".

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#278

Post by mbfg » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 6:51 PM UTC

bluedino wrote: post #260

andreilys wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally a lot of friends in SF don’t bother reporting crimes because they know the police won’t do anything and it’ll be just a waste of their time reporting it.

Or if you call the police, they just never show up, or when they do, tell you not even bother filing a report. Citizen: Someone stole my backpack and laptop out of my car! Police: And?

Ok, imagine for me the society for which you can file a police report for a stolen backpack, and you relatively efficiently have your backpack returned, and the perpetrator brought to justice. What does that society look like? How does that happen?

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#279

Post by bluedino » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 6:51 PM UTC

55555 wrote: post #244

inamberclad wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drug use isn't associated with crime and filth until we make it so via harsh city policies. I would, however, like someone to clean the 4 different instances of poop I saw on my 3 block walk this morning.

I don't live in San Francisco, so please humor me, but are you talking about dog poop or human poop? I know this is an absurd question -- I've never seen human poop on a sidewalk in my entire life -- but I've heard stories about SF...

Against the health code for someone to not cleanup their dog's poop in SF

SEC. 40. DOG TO BE CONTROLLED SO AS NOT TO COMMIT NUISANCES. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person owning or having control or custody of any dog to permit the animal to defecate upon the public property of this City or upon the private property of another unless the person immediately remove the feces and properly dispose of it; provided, however, that nothing herein contained authorizes such person to enter upon the private property of another without permission. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person to walk a dog on public property of this City or upon the private property of another without carrying at all times a suitable container or other suitable instrument for the removal and disposal of dog feces.

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#280

Post by ethbr0 » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 6:51 PM UTC

silicon2401 wrote: post #125

lghh wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems to me like lots of people in SF would rather live in an indoor box than an outdoor box. Why not let those without homes choose if they are willing to take the risks associated with ignoring those rules over l king on the streets?

> Why not let those without homes choose if they are willing to take the risks associated with ignoring those rules over l king on the streets? I'd rather have a government that enforces a high quality of life.

As would we all, but we have to be cognizant that enforcing a high quality of life also means ignoring people who can't afford the raised minimum.

By and large, I'm a fan of American-style freedom-to-succeed-or-fail, but in the context of NIMBY anti-density housing supply crunches, it feels exceptionally cruel.

'We're going to have policies that limit supply and increase the cost of housing' + 'We're going to prevent you from finding other housing by making it illegal' is a heavy one-two punch.