Live data from Hacker News

Average Rent in San Francisco Has Dropped $1k This Year

socketsite.com

291–300 of 562 posts

Re: Average Rent in San Francisco Has Dropped $1k This Year

#291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If land is incredibly expensive and one intends to eat most of their meals out, it doesn’t actually make sense to rent a full kitchen. It is hard to beat the economies of scale of a restaurant, as much as the "you only need to factor the cost of raw food" camp like to tell otherwise. From a purely economic perspective, a kitchen at home, when other sources of food are widely available, is tough to justify. From a w…

I worked as a line cook in college. The place I worked was in a HCOL city, but nowhere close to SF. Our general rule was that items should sell for about 4x the cost of ingredients to cover all overhead. I'm a salaried employ with no expectation of overtime, so my opportunity cost to cook for myself is essentially $0/hr, but even if I factor in a fairly reasonable $15/hr for my own labor, I'm still easily under 4x ra…

I think that there are a couple effects here.

One is that $15/hr is a dramatic underestimate of the opportunity cost for many of the people who would otherwise be eating out. Minimum wage in Mountain View & Sunnyvale is $16.05/hour. My wife & my salaries, if converted to hourly, would be several hundred / hour. We cook at home because we're salaried and so don't actually reap that opportunity cost in cash, and because the transaction costs of finding a restaurant, driving to it, and waiting for food dwarf the food preparation time (indeed, if we're already in the car near food we're far more likely to eat out). Which brings me to...

Transaction costs for meals out are really high, largely because of the automobile. Restaurants in the U.S. are spread out, with large amounts of parking that the restaurant owner needs to pay for. Because you have to hop in the car to go elsewhere, you're far more likely to wait for a table rather than find a less full restaurant. That means restaurant owners need to build in waiting space (more rent), and host staff (more labor), and carefully predict staffing needed (more labor). It means patrons waste time waiting for a table, and then ordering, and they're locked into their choice of restaurant once they show up, which means that they're more inclined to research options carefully before picking where to eat.

I visited my in-laws in Taiwan last year, and the food culture & economics are dramatically different there. Restaurant meals out are the equivalent of $US4-5. Most restaurants are what we'd call fast-casual: you walk in, the menu is posted behind the counter, you order, get your food, and sit down at a small number of tables. When you're done you wipe up your area and bus your food yourself. The whole restaurant is usually family owned & operated; there might be 3-4 employees total. If the place is full, you walk next door to the equally-good restaurant there. ("Destination" restaurants like Din Tai Fung do exist, and they charge American-ish prices of $20-50/plate.) This is all within walking distance of your apartment, so when you're hungry you take the elevator down, walk outside, and find someplace, with minimal search or transportation costs. As a result, there's a big culture of eating out, and most people have just a kitchenette and don't use it for many meals.

Re: Average Rent in San Francisco Has Dropped $1k This Year

#292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dear SF, More apartments built are the only thing to make housing more affordable for normal people. But, when you think of them, you're thinking way too small. You need to think in terms of, like, literally doubling the number of apartments available, and they may then be in reach of normal people once more. You also need to get yourself together and reverse that trend where your transit system has carried fewer peo…

> More apartments built are the only thing to make housing more affordable for normal people What? No! Rent control is among other something that can lower the rent for normal people. I know SF has rent control, but currently it only applies as long as you don’t move.

I support rent control fully, but it does nothing to lower rents. It keeps them the same, at best. It's a way to protect current tenants, which is good, and we should support, as an "ownership-lite" model of residency.

But it's only one, very small, tool in the arsenal to make cities work for the people. It must be accompanied by robust protections to new people as well. The flaw with rent control in isolation is that it assumes that people never move, are never born, and never die, and that cities never change. In order for rent control to be a useful tenant protection, it must be accompanied by robust rebuilding when more people need to live in the city.

Re: Average Rent in San Francisco Has Dropped $1k This Year

#293
post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public housing would.

California requires winning a plebiscite to build public housing. This is not optional. When it does manage to build public housing, SF spends approximately a million dollars a unit to do so. That's purely to get a habitable unit. It includes none of the maintenance costs, which will increase over time, or the social services required to make public housing work as intended. With that in mind, giving literally 100% o…

Zuckerberg hospital? What a fucking hubris.

Re: Average Rent in San Francisco Has Dropped $1k This Year

#294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My opinion is that rent control is much less about actually controlling rent, and more about controlling who is allowed to be in the city and where. Most rent control systems I’ve seen strongly favor those who have been in their current apartment for a long time, as moving often resets the rents back to market rate. And while that does help avoid evicting long time (and old) tenants, it also has the effect of forcing…

That concern, though, is something I've grown much more sympathetic to. There's a fundamental unfairness in putting in work to make your local community great, making it so good that rich people want to live there, and then being told that the community no longer has room for you because the rent is too high. If the city won't allow enough housing to keep your area affordable, you have a right to feel aggrieved, and…

>There's a fundamental unfairness in putting in work to make your local community great, making it so good that rich people want to live there,

Actually that is a the result of an incredibly skewed tax policy. Prop 13 means that the government cannot derive any significant tax income from residential property. It is forced to allow commercial property because it brings in tax money. This means you will always have more commercial property than residential property. Land owners want this because it raises their property values. The government wants this because it's the only way to fund itself.

When you look at the reality of what you are doing you are actually incredibly selfish. You are creating jobs and moving them away from rural places but at the same time you are not building enough housing so that people can live near those jobs. You do this because you want the value of your property to go up. Then once those people are coming because you moved all the jobs to your city you start complaining because they want to work there.

There is this misconception that it's "rich people" who want to live there when the reality is that those people only became rich after they arrived in your city. It's you who created them.

>, and then being told that the community no longer has room for you because the rent is too high.

Well, that's exactly what you wanted. You wanted more jobs meaning more people but you did not want more housing which means someone has to go. If you call this unfair then you have no one to blame other yourself.

Re: Average Rent in San Francisco Has Dropped $1k This Year

#295
post #87

Oakland relaxed a lot of zoning, and permitting regulations about 5 years ago, and so now you're starting to really see production sky rocket. This article [0] mentions 2019 was had 15x more units completed than 2018. And 3x the total units from 2013-2018 combined . Anecdotally, I have several friends who've all moved to Oakland in the last year or so. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and maybe, hope…

I think SF has already taken the hint that they can outsource their residents to Oakland.

Residents strain the city budget via things like public schools. Businesses put money into the city budget via gross receipts taxes.

SF wants the businesses but is very happy for residents to live elsewhere.

Re: Average Rent in San Francisco Has Dropped $1k This Year

#296
post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California requires winning a plebiscite to build public housing. This is not optional. When it does manage to build public housing, SF spends approximately a million dollars a unit to do so. That's purely to get a habitable unit. It includes none of the maintenance costs, which will increase over time, or the social services required to make public housing work as intended. With that in mind, giving literally 100% o…

Zuckerberg hospital? What a fucking hubris.

The hospital administrators insisted. He made what was clearly a mistake in letting them use his name after giving $70 million to the hospital his wife did her residency at.

Benioff Hospital would be unaffected, but only because it's in no way run by SF.

Re: Average Rent in San Francisco Has Dropped $1k This Year

#297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've lived in California my whole life, and I have to agree with the sentiment that our water fixtures are not what they used to be 40 years ago. For example, the shower head we wanted to get is illegal in California, because the flow is too high. When we bought a new toilet we had to get the low flow toilet, which definitely clogs more than the old ones did. What I don't agree with is that this bad. These are minor…

> What I don't agree with is that this bad. These are minor inconveniences The positive externality is even more minor. You are suffering for no good reason.

How can you say that when the evidence is drastically against you? Even in this thread it was pointed out that gross water usage is down for decades across the state and especially in the cities.

This is clearly positive given that just a few years ago we were on the brink of water rationing, even with these measures in place.

Re: Average Rent in San Francisco Has Dropped $1k This Year

#298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My opinion is that rent control is much less about actually controlling rent, and more about controlling who is allowed to be in the city and where. Most rent control systems I’ve seen strongly favor those who have been in their current apartment for a long time, as moving often resets the rents back to market rate. And while that does help avoid evicting long time (and old) tenants, it also has the effect of forcing…

That concern, though, is something I've grown much more sympathetic to. There's a fundamental unfairness in putting in work to make your local community great, making it so good that rich people want to live there, and then being told that the community no longer has room for you because the rent is too high. If the city won't allow enough housing to keep your area affordable, you have a right to feel aggrieved, and…

Nobody moves to SF for the community. They come for the high paying jobs.

Re: Average Rent in San Francisco Has Dropped $1k This Year

#299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> More apartments built are the only thing to make housing more affordable for normal people What? No! Rent control is among other something that can lower the rent for normal people. I know SF has rent control, but currently it only applies as long as you don’t move.

I support rent control fully, but it does nothing to lower rents. It keeps them the same, at best. It's a way to protect current tenants, which is good, and we should support, as an "ownership-lite" model of residency. But it's only one, very small, tool in the arsenal to make cities work for the people. It must be accompanied by robust protections to new people as well. The flaw with rent control in isolation is tha…

I’m not talking about rent control as it is currently done in San Francisco. We need more. Like you say, rent control should also apply when a new tenant moves in. A landlord should not be allowed to raise the rent arbitrarily when a new tenant moves in.

Also rent control should not be the only measure. The county should also buy up housing and rent for cheaper to drive the market rate down, price gauging should be illegal (for everyone, not just foreign investors). etc.

Re: Average Rent in San Francisco Has Dropped $1k This Year

#300
post #97
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both. I spent the last decade having these conversations with people who also grew up here and can’t afford to remain here without staying with their parents, with some of the stranger conversations devolving into my counter parties brainstorming ways to kick tech people out of the City and stop new people from moving in altogether, as if freedom of movement in the United States wasn’t really a thing. It’s not “suppl…

There so much land in the US. People don't have to live in San Fransisco. These people grew up there, they want to live in their home. You know, that emotional thing that money can't really explain. Sure they see the people arriving in, with huge paychecks that drive prices up, and them out as bad. Any human will, a rational agent won't.

Though this is not an uncommon view in SF at the moment, I find it horrifying. What has made SF such a great place from the 1970s to ~2010 has been its willingness to accept new people, including the strange and the weird. That's not to say that it's been a great city for everyone, the first-wave gentrifiers from the 1960s pushed out Black people from the neighborhoods they took over, like Haight Ashbury, and the downzonings they enacted over the city have greatly amplified their material wealth while keeping out those without wealthy.

But for a brief 40 years before the super-constriction of supply happened, it was a welcoming place to lots of people that couldn't find homes elsewhere, because there were at least some empty places to rent out.

What drives up the prices isn't that people with big salaries are there, they've always been there. What's driving up the rents is that the people with big real estate holdings have said that the people with paychecks can't build anything new. So instead of those big paychecks going to building more infrastructure and subsidized low-income housing, those big paychecks are going only to current landlords, and pushing out anybody without a big paycheck.

SF housing is a game of musical chairs, and all the people that found their chair in the 1970s and 1980s easily because there were lots of empty chairs have decided that there should be no more chairs. That provincial, close-minded, and ultimately xenophobic attitude is what makes the housing market so unfair.

Post reply on HN