San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

Post by adameasterling » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 7:49 PM UTC

buss wrote: post #344

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…

We can fix it, but only if we get organized. Sachin Agarwal (co-founder of Posterous) and I founded GrowSF to fix the city. We're less than two years in and already the #2 most influential voter guide in the city. We must elect pro-growth and pro-tech people who can bring competence to government. There's no other way out of this mess. We'd love your support! https://growsf.org/donate

Post by georgeecollins » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 7:50 PM UTC

SECProto wrote: post #405

mochomocha wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but I don't think SF is an exception here. The whole Bay Area is a NIMBY nest that looks frozen in time with infrastructure similar to what was in Europe in the 1950s. That's how my SF neighbor pays 30x less property tax than I do though, so there's that. Too much local democracy: "I don't want someone in Sacramento deciding for me" is how you end up with this expression of pure individualism, where Atherton res…

> The whole Bay Area is a NIMBY nest The whole every urban area of North America is a NIMBY nest. Pretty much every city is stuck with swathes of land zoned only for single family homes, with any density needing development agreements and land use change hearings and etc. Some cities are less geographically constrained (more sprawl is possible) or slower growing (the zoning changes can accommodate the growth) but the…

Post by LatteLazy » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 7:53 PM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #406

LatteLazy wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cities need social services to work, because of the density of people. It is a problem when my neighbour is crazy and screams for 18h a day when we live on top of each other in a city. It isn't when we live in the middle of no where and are separated by 50miles. Only America is specifically designed to prevent any sort of social services, because people have the freedom to come into town to use those services and the…

The "cities are forced to subsidize the surrounding areas" can be solved by pushing services up to the county or state level, if needed. What has happened is people can move and cities weren't ready for that. Moving things to the federal level is the final backstop against it, but even that eventually runs out.

Post by georgeecollins » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 7:54 PM UTC

trident5000 wrote: post #73

paxys wrote: 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.

Worked well for Detroit

Post by 988747 » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 7:55 PM UTC

darth_avocado wrote: post #413

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 isn’t associated with crime and filth until we make it so via harsh city policies It absolutely is. The more addictive and mind altering a drug is, the more it contributes to users who contribute to crime and filth. Forget drugs, even high alcohol consumption is directly related to more crime and filth.