Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

sfstandard.com

321–330 of 622 posts

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#321
post #269
post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This delusion that if only we build houses, the homeless, mentally ill and drug addicted will magically disappear from the streets...is based on what exactly? What does "housing policy" mean in the context of streets lined with tent cities filled with drug addicts?

surely you are not arguing it won't go down at all, right? So the question really is, what amount of homelessness will disappear. It may be that it is not cost effective. That is a reasonable possibility, i suppose. I think tho, it is a difficult prediction to make, and so shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

You'll be subsidizing their drug habit, and increasing the number of homeless, mentally ill, and drug addicted people that reside in your city that taxes will have to pay for (simply to exist in the houses you gave them, and keep abusing drugs). Of course it won't be cost effective because it's not accomplishing anything except paying them to ruin whatever building you give them, which they likely won't stay in anyways. They're out there because they want to be out there doing drugs. At the very least, the drug addiction would have to be stopped, which isn't likely in any case, but certainly not by just giving them a house.

There's an entire thriving economy in SF with jobs these people could be doing. What aren't they doing them? If cost of living is too expensive there, why not go to a cheaper city and do work there? If they have skills to be a white collar worker, SF is a great place to do that work and easily afford housing. Why aren't they doing it? Mental illness and drugs dominate the problem by such an order of magnitude that anything else save for harsh imprisonment to get off streets....especially subsidization of their lifestyle, will accomplish less than nothing.

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a SF resident, but a 1.5% payroll tax doesn't seem that bad? NYC's is over double that. $20,000 for a pilot trash can is pretty ridiculous, however.

$20,000 for a pilot trash can is pretty ridiculous, however. $20,000 was for a one off (well, each of the three custom designs cost about that much) garbage can. The off-the-shelf models cost between $600 and $2,800 and the city budgeted no more than $3,000 per can. https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/for-a-trash-can-in-san...

Not to press this point too hard, but "no more than $3,000 per can" is still ridiculous. They're $175 apiece here[1].

I can understand spending $20,000 (or even $60,000) on the pilot designs. But TFA makes it sound like the city was billed $20,000 just to fabricate it.

Edit: Updated the link to a better article.

[1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-04/new-york-...

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#323

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…

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 the…

So you can totally "hide a body" but using %s with homicide is a bit unclear as homicide is less that 100, so the 2.9% drop is only a difference from 34 down to 33.

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#324
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. On an area-weighted basis most of SF is wasted on detached single-family homes. https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7470676,-122.4914956,314m/da...

Why "wasted" ? Does everyone need to live with the least amount of space possible?

Even in a single family detached home my last neighbor was a nightmare. He was a drunk and would be loud and throw bottles into my yard and start arguments any time anyone said anything. He was a renter so eventually he got into bad terms with his landlord and she booted him. I would dread the thought of loving even closer to someone. At least I had a fence and some concept of space from him. I could only imagine the harassment living wall to wall with this guy. For me single family detached homes are not wasted space but the minimum people should strive for.

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#325
post #160
post #56

In a way I'm glad that a large chunk of San Francisco's population is getting exactly what they have wanted for years – to get rid of big tech takeover of the city. Maybe they will actually fare better with a significantly reduced number of tech workers and jobs, or maybe they won't. At least we'll know for certain now, and can stop all the whining.

I know people miss SF as it was before the boom, but can it actually readjust to substantially less tax revenue with the city government + responsibilities it has now? From what I read about Detroit, once businesses started shrinking or leaving the tax base shrank. The city was unable to cut down on services and spending, so it raised taxes on everyone remaining and the squeeze of more tax and worse QoL made people l…

> but can it actually readjust to substantially less tax revenue with the city government + responsibilities it has now

That's the question isn't it? San Francisco has by far the highest per-capita city budget in the country. It spends more on homeless services in a year than most cities of similar size spend on everything. The city is simply addicted to spending money, and looking at the deterioration of street conditions, increase in homelessness and addiction, increase in property crime and more, they are clearly not getting its worth.

Theoretically could the city make do with a 30% budget cut year over year? It absolutely could. Columbus, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, Fort Worth, Memphis, and even San Jose and San Diego somehow survive on 1/5 - 1/10 the money despite supporting similar sized populations. It remains to be seen whether San Francisco can make the correct cuts and not drive away the remaining tax generating citizens and companies.

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#326

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.

Looking at that link murders are down from 34 to 33, not exactly stunning success. Especially if a murder is ruled something else.

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It's a good question and how we "did" it in the past might need to be investigated.

House prices and appreciation were basically the same throughout the US until something like the 1950s, when places like CA began to far outstrip other parts of the country. I don't think that CA became a desirable place to live suddenly in the 50s, but perhaps it did?

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#328

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…

These are all small problems compared to the pension system exploding.

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#329

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…

Money goes to where it's treated best and people vote with their feet. I know people thumb their nose on the state, but Florida is open for business. But the real secret is Puerto Rico and their incredible tax incentives for software companies.

Florida could be a real option vs SF but not with Fascists in charge.

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#330
For everyone that lives in San Francisco: the only way we'll be able to fix our city is if we get involved. That means voting and donating to pro-growth and pro-competence political groups.

That's why a4agarwal (https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=a4agarwal) and I started GrowSF — we can build a better city, but only if the tech industry supports pro-growth policies and elected officials.

We'd love your support! https://growsf.org/donate

Post reply on HN