The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups • Hacker News Board

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#321

Post by cat199 » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 9:06 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #289

amyjess wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So if the offices are getting built in SF, This is the problem. Embrace edge cities, people. There's no reason to expect hundreds of thousands of people to commute to a downtown area. Scatter the businesses throughout the suburbs, dammit. Start locating new startups not just in Oakland but even farther out, in places such as Walnut Creek or Santa Rosa. Hell, maybe a tech influx could get the crime down in Stockton.

That's what you have in DC and it's a total clusterfuck. Nobody wants to move just because they change jobs, and spouses won't limit job choices just to be in the same suburb as each other. So you have people commuting in random directions through inter-suburb roads that weren't designed to handle it.

Agreed things are a mess there traffic wise further out - but -

Part of the problem with DC metro is that the suburbs where it would make sense to expand the roadways are full of multi-million dollar homes owned by rich politically connected people (not just several hundred thousand dollar homes owned by mere mortals), plus you have the 4 'local' state governments (dc,md,va,fed) plus cities (e.g. chevy chase, arlington, etc) and bazillions of agencies (e.g. park service) throwing their hat in the ring too..

E.g. hypothetically, why should the northern tip of DC (and therefore the fed) pay to improve a congested road full of traffic between rockville and chevy chase? and why is my mansion being demolished and not yours etc.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#322

Post by lovich » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 9:07 PM UTC

randomdata wrote: post #310

potatolicious wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "or is that a nonsense thing to say in the States?" It's a nonsense thing to say in front of the educated American elite. Most of America agrees with you, but as we've seen, there is a disturbing trend amongst American elites to mock anyone who is unwilling to sacrifice their families, communities, and networks in the name of career development/personal advancement. I'm not into most aspects of the populism that is…

> Most of America agrees with you The ever increasing urbanization rate suggests otherwise. If the majority of Americans had stuck close to their families, these cities would be small settlements at best, and maybe wouldn't even exist at all. In reality, the high cost (which may come in the form of lower income) of living elsewhere has pushed most into these cities.

I think woosh might be in order here. @potatolicious is discussing how people value their communities but American elites can't understand not sacrificing everything for your career or economics, and your reply is to just discuss the economics?

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#323

Post by mahyarm » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 9:09 PM UTC

Kpourdeilami wrote: post #191

aaron-lebo wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are massive swaths of the US with much cheaper living than SF and better infrastructure, markets, and basic rights than Russia, China, or Brazil.

I would strongly recommend Canada, especially the Kitchener-Waterloo area. The rents are very reasonable (~$700 USD for a one bedroom apartment, in the safest neighbourhood in Waterloo) and there are tonnes of resources and help available there for early stage startups (Velocity - a free incubator that provides mentorship & office space, Communitech, etc) Not having to worry about things like health insurance is very…

There are dangerous neighborhoods in waterloo?

Canada is pretty much safe everywhere. Maybe vancouver east side excepted.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#324

Post by csomar » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 9:10 PM UTC

kilroy123 wrote: post #299

Why doesn't a developer build a mile high building there? Maybe it could even be built in the ocean like this: http://www.businessinsider.com/tokyo-mile-high-skyscraper-wo...

For what purpose? If you convert these brownstone houses in San Fransisco that hosts only 3-4 families to small condominiums that have 10-12 levels, you almost solved the problem.*

* The condominiums should have 2 underground floor of parking and preferably there should be 1 or 2 metro lines to handle the new population.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#325

Post by mahyarm » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 9:11 PM UTC

javiramos wrote: post #122

nailer wrote: post #115

This is excellent opportunity for anyone who wants investment from west coast VCs but doesn't want to deal with San Francisco, Oakland or the bay area. San Francisco frequently has human feces on the sidewalk in many areas right near the city center, high housing prices and a combination of startup bros and angry hard left outrage culture folk. The bay area is a cultureless void and Oakland is still dangerous. Better…

"San Francisco frequently has human feces on the sidewalk" This did it for me. I stepped on a big mound of human feces when walking along Market Street on my way to a job interview. The dichotomy of SF was perfectly portrayed in that 15 minute walk: expensive cars driving on Market street (most likely driven by a tech person) while homeless people were openly shooting up and defecating on the street.

Other cities just arrest / export those people, in SF they do not.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#326

Post by scelerat » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 9:11 PM UTC

e40 wrote: post #157

kevinburke wrote: post #6

Both top-level comments have mentioned housing prices. I grew up in the Bay Area and want to stay here and I am trying to work to change policy to help build more housing. Unfortunately due to law, bad policy and NIMBY's the market is not going to solve this problem on its own, without political change rents and housing prices will keep increasing. Here are some political actions you can take to help: - call your Sta…

Four large apartment buildings in the East Bay have been burned by arsonists (likely the same one or group) in the last year. One in Uptown a few weeks ago. One, in Emmeryville was burned down twice . I agree, we need to build more housing. It seems it's not quite that simple, though.

NIMBYism is merely one of the theories why the buildings in Emeryville to which you refer were set ablaze. Another begins with the phrase "follow the money..."

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#327

Post by ubernostrum » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 9:15 PM UTC

marme wrote: post #286

abalone wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10% is way low. SF has been negotiating for 25% and up.[1] BMR isn't just about culture and diversity. It's about teachers and service industry workers and everyone a functioning city needs. The gap is so large between market rate and affordability, and there are so many richer people still wanting to move into SF, that it is likely wishful thinking that market rate development will be "enough" to solve the problem.…

BMR units should not be required by private developers. This is a public problem that private developers are being forced to solve and many are just refusing to build more housing because they cant make a profit. Instead of requiring them to build BMR units just require all apartments to rent out 25% of units to section 8 housing and the city can subsidize the rent of low income people. The more barriers to housing y…

This is a problem which will eventually leave shortsighted developers holding the bag if they're not forced to deal with it.

Think of it like overfishing: you could just as easily say overfishing is a public problem that private fishermen shouldn't be "forced" to solve through quotas. Some fishermen used to believe that, too, right up until the day there weren't any more fish for them to catch because they'd destroyed the population they relied on for their livelihoods.

If housing costs in and around SF don't get under control soon, we're going to have a lot of very rich people who can't do much because there won't be any Uber drivers, baristas, waiters, garbage collectors or really any lower-paid service-sector people to keep the area functioning. And that will pop the housing bubble in a way that's devastating to developers, but they currently don't believe they have any incentive to head it off -- let somebody else build the cheap housing, I'm going to build as expensive as I can!

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#328

Post by timr » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 9:15 PM UTC

pcwalton wrote: post #293

timr wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Wishing people would just leave is what the NIMBY organizations have been trying for decades." ...and yet, this crisis is only about 5 years old. Between 2008 and 2012, San Francisco rents were going down , not up. San Francisco's population declined in the 1980s. Say what you will about construction rates, but this is an acute housing crisis, brought on by an asset bubble, instigated by historically low interest ra…

I am much less interested in what "should" happen in a macroeconomic sense than what is happening: lots of people need to live here right now . It's worth remembering that the people most hurt by NIMBY policies are not, by and large, the tech workers making six-figure salaries. The victims are the teachers, firefighters, artists, nurses, secretaries, and everyone else who isn't a programmer. Yeah, it might be nice if…

"The victims are the teachers, firefighters, artists, nurses, secretaries, and everyone else who isn't a programmer."

OK...but that's also an argument for creating public policy that discourages tech companies from locating in the city. We could start by eliminating the mid-Market tax incentives.

The "yimby" movement is at least as much about tech companies who have invaded and now want to change their environment, as it is "everyone else who isn't a programmer." I wish we could be honest about that fact.

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#329

Post by pdeuchler » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 9:16 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #254

nailer wrote: post #115

This is excellent opportunity for anyone who wants investment from west coast VCs but doesn't want to deal with San Francisco, Oakland or the bay area. San Francisco frequently has human feces on the sidewalk in many areas right near the city center, high housing prices and a combination of startup bros and angry hard left outrage culture folk. The bay area is a cultureless void and Oakland is still dangerous. Better…

> The bay area is a cultureless void Would you please not post slurs like this here? It's pure flamebait and leads to worse.

You're really proving him wrong by calling that a "slur"...

Seems very odd to me that a mod would find it worth his time to tsk tsk at someone making a commonly held observation about the Bay Area but is seemingly fine with the elitist opinions that are all over HN about other parts of the country

Re: The Decline of Investment in San Francisco Startups

#330

Post by potatolicious » Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 9:16 PM UTC

randomdata wrote: post #310

potatolicious wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "or is that a nonsense thing to say in the States?" It's a nonsense thing to say in front of the educated American elite. Most of America agrees with you, but as we've seen, there is a disturbing trend amongst American elites to mock anyone who is unwilling to sacrifice their families, communities, and networks in the name of career development/personal advancement. I'm not into most aspects of the populism that is…

> Most of America agrees with you The ever increasing urbanization rate suggests otherwise. If the majority of Americans had stuck close to their families, these cities would be small settlements at best, and maybe wouldn't even exist at all. In reality, the high cost (which may come in the form of lower income) of living elsewhere has pushed most into these cities.

Like the other user said, the pattern of what people end up doing isn't necessarily the pattern of what people want to do.

More specifically, though, the majority of Americans have stuck close to their families - they may not live in the same exact town they grew up in, but most live within a certain radius of where their family/community/network is. Americans have shown that they are willing to move to follow economic fortunes, but remain tethered to the general area their families and loved ones are in.

And this - at least anecdotally - is a common preference. I've lost count of the number of conversations I've had with colleagues and friends about where they can live where they can still be in range of [parents|grandparents|cousins|organizations|institutions].

And this is where I think the rhetoric goes off the rails - some forcible relocation may be inevitable - after all, we can't ensure there are enough jobs for all people in all places at all times.

But there's a line between acknowledging that forced migration is necessary/inevitable, and regarding those who resist it with derision. God help us if we ever fault someone for wanting to stay near their family and their community.