Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stripe to move to South San Francisco

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 441 posts

Re: Stripe to move to South San Francisco

#401

Post by afjl »

lsc wrote: post #171
dawg- wrote: post #149

I am not in the bay area, in fact I've never even been to the West Coast. So I am going to ask what may seem like a stupid question to some of you. I mean this in as polite a way as possible, but why wouldn't established companies like Stripe just fuck off to another city entirely? It's a successful company with a great product - that I'm sure many people would like to work for. They could surely lure talent from the…

> Is there some hidden reason that companies like this insist on staying in the same area despite the many potential advantages of looking elsewhere? the long term root is that there is a huge productivity advantage to clusters of workers. (or, at least many people believe so) Around here, if you strike up a random conversation in public, it's very likely you will do so with someone who does something relevant to wha…

> I know a lot of people paying under 2/3rds what they'd pay in rent if they moved in today, even without rent control.

Wouldn't this mean that landlords are effectively leaving money on the table? If it's not rent controlled, couldn't they just jack up the rent whenever they felt like it?

Re: Stripe to move to South San Francisco

#402

Post by afjl »

jeffFrom18F wrote: post #361
charlesju wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. San Francisco is really nice. It's 87 degrees today at the end of October. There is good food, decent public transportation, culture, ocean, forests, etc. It doesn't snow here or get blistering hot, so productivity is very steady year round. 2. Because San Francisco is very nice (perhaps) and we have good schools around here. A lot of hires come from UCB, Stanford, UCLA, USC, and other UCs. Those account for sever…

> decent public transportation Nope

It's better than LA's, although that's not saying much. And it's better than most US metro areas.

Re: Stripe to move to South San Francisco

#403

Post by lsc »

afjl wrote: post #401
lsc wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there some hidden reason that companies like this insist on staying in the same area despite the many potential advantages of looking elsewhere? the long term root is that there is a huge productivity advantage to clusters of workers. (or, at least many people believe so) Around here, if you strike up a random conversation in public, it's very likely you will do so with someone who does something relevant to wha…

> I know a lot of people paying under 2/3rds what they'd pay in rent if they moved in today, even without rent control. Wouldn't this mean that landlords are effectively leaving money on the table? If it's not rent controlled, couldn't they just jack up the rent whenever they felt like it?

>Wouldn't this mean that landlords are effectively leaving money on the table?

Yes.

>If it's not rent controlled, couldn't they just jack up the rent whenever they felt like it?

I was talking with a guy who I work with who is a landlord on the side, and he seemed to have this real labor-theory-of-value sense of fairness, like he says he jacks up rent every time his taxes or insurance or what have you goes up, but it sounds like he's like 5 years behind market (which is a huge amount)

And this is super common in California, small-time landlords, if the tenant is not causing issues, tend to raise rents rather less than market.

I think some of it is that the vast majority of your ROI, in California, comes from property appreciation, (while in many other markets, as far as I can tell, you usually get a lot more cashflow; all the places I looked at in cleveland or in new mexico would be positive cashflow out the gate; all the places I've looked at buying in California only become positive cashflow once rents go up rather a lot) - so I guess maybe some landlords feel that if they don't jack up rents too much on easy tenants, they won't have to do as much work, and as most of their income is actually appreciation on the property which happens either way, they don't see giving up some of the rent as that big of a deal?

I can tell you that if you rent from a professional property management company, your rents will go up way faster, but they are also way more responsive when it comes to fixing things, and there is a strong feeling that if the rents haven't gone up on you in a while, you want to deal with any problems yourself; you don't want to call the landlord, which is evidence in favor of the "landlords avoiding work" theory.

The thing that this theory doesn't explain is that a lot of these landlords seem to be below market by a lot more than what a property management firm would charge. (I think. around here property management companies charge more than usual and usually have really big fees for replacing a moved-out tenant)

Re: Stripe to move to South San Francisco

#404

Post by lsc »

Kalium wrote: post #289
dawg- wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the insight, again I fully admit that I don't know the details of the housing/jobs market over there so it was really interesting to hear your perspective. I think the movie industry example is an interesting connection to make. For the last few years Atlanta has overtaken LA as the top producer of feature films in the country, largely due to crazy huge tax incentives for movie studios, and has earned the…

> But I wonder if a city could ever follow the model of Atlanta and try to build a "new Silicon Valley" from scratch with aggressive policies that lure companies/employees from existing tech hubs? You might be surprised by how many "Silicon X" places there are. Most of them are trying to lure companies. Only a few - like Atlanta - seem to understand that they need educational and financial infrastructure first.

I think educational infrastructure is almost a trailing indicator... Silicon Valley is special 'cause it prizes the sort of education required to do this sort of work. Especially when I first came here in the '90s, it was amazing - going from the place I grew up, where reading in public felt like it was risking physical violence (well, that's not really fair, I was 17) - to silicon valley, where that sort of thing was the sort of thing to do.

Re: Stripe to move to South San Francisco

#405

Post by foogazi »

afjl wrote: post #401
lsc wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there some hidden reason that companies like this insist on staying in the same area despite the many potential advantages of looking elsewhere? the long term root is that there is a huge productivity advantage to clusters of workers. (or, at least many people believe so) Around here, if you strike up a random conversation in public, it's very likely you will do so with someone who does something relevant to wha…

> I know a lot of people paying under 2/3rds what they'd pay in rent if they moved in today, even without rent control. Wouldn't this mean that landlords are effectively leaving money on the table? If it's not rent controlled, couldn't they just jack up the rent whenever they felt like it?

Maybe they are not maximizing only on rent

Re: Stripe to move to South San Francisco

#406

Post by lsc »

zjaffee wrote: post #378
unlinked_dll wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the last few years Atlanta has overtaken LA as the top producer of feature films in the country I've worked in the film business a bit. I'd say it's more like colonization than relocation. Atlanta is a place for filming at low costs, most of pre/post production and the organizational aspects still happens in Los Angeles. Most of the talent is still in LA and flies out to Atlanta for a few weeks. They're saving a buc…

Adding onto this point, I think one thing to recognize about the future of LA as a big media hub is the fact that tons of popular Youtubers and other independent content creators will relocate to Los Angeles due to the agglomeration of talent that exists there. This is much more similar to how things work with SF/SV in the context of startups.

I think there's a big social component, too. I personally would pay rather extra to live here in silicon valley - extra even net additional earnings, just because I fit in ways I don't fit anywhere else I've been. (I mean, I'm not claiming that silicon valley is more inclusive than other places; a lot of people say the opposite and I have seen some evidence corroborating that view. I'm just saying, for me, for who I am, I feel like I fit here; I feel like I'm treated better here because of who I am than I am treated anywhere else. I suppose you could say that I feel like I have 'privilege' here in ways that I don't feel like I do in, say, the place where I spent most of my childhood.)

(because of the things I described above about how california privileges long term residents, I actually don't pay much more here than I would in any other place of similar density, and net earnings, I'm way better off financially here than anywhere else because I have that granfathered housing deal. (of course, my housing here is a lot less flexible.) Nobody else in the world will pay what silicon valley will pay when you have my skills and no degree. But in theory I would pay a premium to live here.)

Before I die, I want to try living in New York, partly 'cause I really enjoy the car-free lifestyle, but also 'cause I think that it's good to sometimes go to a place where you don't fit in as well, where you interact with people who have dramatically different worldviews about what constitutes an interesting problem. But for me, someone who fit in really badly where he grew up? Finding a place where I fit in was supremely important, even if I don't think it's great to spend the entire rest of my life in that place. Just having that experience of fitting in is transformative, I think.

My guess is that actor/entertainer types have similar feelings about LA; I mean, I think there's a lot of stories about that; about young theatre types running off to LA to find themselves (which I assumed meant "find people who value you") I mean, people talk about shared values; and it's not about voting the same way, mostly, or anything like that, at least for me, as it is about finding the same sorts of problems interesting. I mean, acting and entertaining is a deep sort of thing. I certainly don't understand much of it, but I can at least see that there's a lot there to understand, and if that's your bag, it seems like going and living near other people who also find that sort of thing could be important.

Re: Stripe to move to South San Francisco

#407

Post by Gibbon1 »

lsc wrote: post #403
afjl wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know a lot of people paying under 2/3rds what they'd pay in rent if they moved in today, even without rent control. Wouldn't this mean that landlords are effectively leaving money on the table? If it's not rent controlled, couldn't they just jack up the rent whenever they felt like it?

>Wouldn't this mean that landlords are effectively leaving money on the table? Yes. >If it's not rent controlled, couldn't they just jack up the rent whenever they felt like it? I was talking with a guy who I work with who is a landlord on the side, and he seemed to have this real labor-theory-of-value sense of fairness, like he says he jacks up rent every time his taxes or insurance or what have you goes up, but it…

> And this is super common in California, small-time landlords, if the tenant is not causing issues, tend to raise rents rather less than market.

A landlord is renting out a long lived expensive asset. Small time landlords I've talked to all mention that you make money on tenants that pay their rent and don't cause issues. Bad tenants easily cost you more than it would to just leave the unit empty. A tenet can easily do $100k worth of damage in less than a year.

Re: Stripe to move to South San Francisco

#408

Post by lsc »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #407
lsc wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Wouldn't this mean that landlords are effectively leaving money on the table? Yes. >If it's not rent controlled, couldn't they just jack up the rent whenever they felt like it? I was talking with a guy who I work with who is a landlord on the side, and he seemed to have this real labor-theory-of-value sense of fairness, like he says he jacks up rent every time his taxes or insurance or what have you goes up, but it…

> And this is super common in California, small-time landlords, if the tenant is not causing issues, tend to raise rents rather less than market. A landlord is renting out a long lived expensive asset. Small time landlords I've talked to all mention that you make money on tenants that pay their rent and don't cause issues. Bad tenants easily cost you more than it would to just leave the unit empty. A tenet can easily…

> A tenet can easily do $100k worth of damage in less than a year.

A whole lot of the housing stock in silicon valley (and it seems most of what is owned by this type of landlord) is essentially teardowns; stuff built more than 50 years ago to working-class standards. the structure itself represents the right to 'remodel' into something someone willing to pay a million bucks for a house might actually want to live in; and by 'remodel' I mean to leave the 'minimum legal structure' standing (I think paul graham made some joke about it on twitter some time ago, with a photo of a remodel that had one interior wall standing and the rest demolished. The joke was thought to be problematic, if I remember, for some reason I don't remember.)

I mean, sure, if the landlord wants to keep renting out a shack built in the '60s, the wrong tenant can make that quite expensive, but it would be difficult for the tenant to devalue the market value of the asset by 100K.

I suppose that might be another part of it; there certainly is some demand for these older units at market rates, but certainly for people willing to pay full freight, the nicer units go first.

Re: Stripe to move to South San Francisco

#409

Post by x0x0 »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #398
wbronitsky wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a very helpful argument. I live in Oakland and commute to San Francisco and rarely take Bart because there are many other options that don't involve me breathing directly from someone else's exhalation like we all are forced to on Bart. Personally, I take casual carpool, https://sfcasualcarpool.com/ , to work and a transbay bus home. Total cost is $6.50/day, which is cheaper than commuting by Bart, and bec…

Yeah I couldn't give you stats on how many people do that commute via car, but bus vs BART is a no brainer. A 10-car BART train can hold about 1,000 people. Bus service can't scale like that (especially not on shared right of ways) which would definitely put you in the minority. South city may as well be the middle of nowhere transit-wise but the difference between taking BART to Market St vs SSF isn't all that big.

it's 19 minutes each way if you ride the train, and roughly 30 minutes each way if you require a transfer. Plus more waiting time heading north due to worse service intervals.

I'm struggling to figure out how a one hour increase in commute time isn't a big deal. Without even discussing the local bus.

Re: Stripe to move to South San Francisco

#410

Post by PopeDotNinja »

marblar wrote: post #384
asdff wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google maps work commute estimates in CA are not accurate at all. Probably looking at 30-45mins during rush hour which would be soul crushing if you've previously fought 20 other applicants for a year long lease at a place in walking distance of the old HQ

Where are you guys living that you have to fight 20 people for a lease?

San Francisco is not an easy place to get an affordable apartment, especially one that is located near work and/or good public transportation options.
Post reply on HN