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

San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

sfstandard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 622 posts

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#451

Post by aliston »

mullen wrote: post #329
cpursley wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Speech codes, redefinition of words, 2nd Amendment infringements, byzantine and contradictory government approval processes, centrally-planned price floors and caps... The CA legislature literally just passed a bill last week criminalizing wrongthink from doctors that don't agree with Ministry of Truth's definition of misinformation. California is a great place, but I'd take Florida's legislature any day versus the big brother government we have here.

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#452

Post by diebeforei485 »

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #143
TedShiller wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free drugs of course, supported by the tax payer

I can't tell if you're being serious or not, but I feel it needs to be clarified. The reality is free drugs at safe injection sites, supported by the tax payer, is cheaper for the tax payer. Overdoses and emergency services for overdoses cost a LOT of money. "a period of 2 years and 3 months", "with a savings of over $2.3 million for the lifetime of the program"[0]. Roughly $1 MM per year for just the 1 city in this…

Did you read the paper you cited? They don't look at all overdoses, only the overdoses that happen at these sites. It's a fairly weak paper and doesn't justify your claim.

> This study only includes an analysis of known overdoses at the SCS site. Future research could also examine the rates of overdoses in the community, to achieve a broader understanding of overdose management and prevention across settings.

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#453

Post by Willish42 »

happyopossum wrote: post #274
scarby2 wrote: post #223

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…

> a command economy, with all housing owned and doled out by the government. That just doesn't work, anywhere, ever.

We need a shared definition of "working" then. There are plenty of ways to disincentivize low-density real estate development and incentivize high density and affordable housing, and all of them involve regulation and tax reform to control the market to some degree.

This post apparently assumes any non-free-market structure that "doesn't work" would be a worse outcome than we have currently, where there are more vacant homes than homeless people.

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#454

Post by Apocryphon »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #414
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is meant for affordable housing and to move vote banks from other counties We have this in New York. It's far from as cancerous as the situation in California. When Marc Andreessen is talking about building housing in California while screaming about it in his backyard, you have the poster child for the problem [1]. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-18/atherton-...

Cities should have capped populations for efficiency. There has to be high income, medium income and low income housing ratio to have a balanced and economically diverse population. We just have to build another city with great infrastructure and network it to other cities when we have an influx of population due to jobs or organic population growth. It’s like how they say.. When there is a surfeit of sardines, we bu…

> We just have to build another city with great infrastructure and network it to other cities when we have an influx of population due to jobs or organic population growth.

Ah, the cyberpunk solution.

https://cyberpunk.fandom.com/wiki/Night_City#Inception_(1990...

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#455

Post by lotsofpulp »

jamroom wrote: post #341
bluedino wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or if you call the police, they just never show up, or when they do, tell you not even bother filing a report. Citizen: Someone stole my backpack and laptop out of my car! Police: And?

If you want to make an insurance claim don't insurance companies require a police report? I would assume this is the case regardless where you live.

Few people are going to make an insurance claim for a few thousand dollars, especially with what the premiums would be in areas with high crime. It is not a big enough loss to have to deal with filing a claim and then being subject to even higher premiums. You either replace it with your savings, or you learn to live without.

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#456

Post by anigbrowl »

starkd wrote: post #77
ptmcc wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most offices have physical layouts that make conversion to residential difficult to impossible. Big things like lots of interior square footage without windows and plumbing only to a few central locations. And while some or even most of this is fixable, major renovations are a ton of cost and effort to convert them to something that will still be expensive and weird, if even possible to meet the legal requirements of…

It's like efforts to convert abandoned malls into apartments. Hard to even imagine living in a mall and the exorbitant cost to convert into something livable. Most people would rather be homeless than living in such a terrifying environment.

Doubt

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#457

Post by TravHatesMe »

georgeecollins wrote: post #423
SECProto wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Smart, ethical people-- like the ones here-- can be YIMBYs. Suburb I live in everyone is mad about: "McMansions" (whatever that means), multi-family homes and any development particularly apartment buildings. These people need to be shamed for their selfishness. I am a homeowner and a YIMBY. Join me!

Great so will you volunteer to support a high rise behind you overlooking your house and backyard, a methadone clinic to your left, and train tracks to your right? Throw in a homeless encampment or two across the road to appease your bleeding heart.

Sorry for being facetious, I sound like a jerk, but there must exist a threshold in willingness to devalue what is typically one's greatest asset and more importantly decrease your quality of life. By all means be as selfless and altruistic as you would like but do not expect everyone else to follow suit.

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#458

Post by Apocryphon »

nebula8804 wrote: post #426
hahaxdxd123 wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can confirm like 80% of my Google friends are 3 hour/day types. But then again, it was only 5-6 hours/day before COVID anyway.

They are living The American Dream that Homer Simpson made us all aspire to. It may not last but at least they were fortunate enough to experience it for now. (I wanna be there :/ )

Homer was kind of a nuclear reactor SRE if you think about it.

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#459

Post by fakethenews2022 »

LatteLazy wrote: post #420
fakethenews2022 wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cities already make visitors pay. First there is usually a higher sales tax. Furthermore, many cities have additional taxes on lodging and entertainment. These taxes are quite substantial. Furthermore look at decaying cities in the 70s. The cities weren't subsidizing surrounding areas by providing services. Instead, many businesses and services straight moved out of cities to surrounding areas. So did many people. It…

The ways you list are fine for getting a few extra dollars our of tourists. But there nothing compared the millions who commute in and out daily to work and pay no property taxes. And that's without counting criminals or people with mental health issues or 101 other groups who travel in and become the cities problem.

Read the article. It disproves your point completely. The commercial property owner is paying taxes and very high ones at that if it is recently purchased property. Do you know what the rents were per sq ft in SF? They were Manhattan level. SF was collecting on that.

According to your notion, why isn't the town the employee resides also collecting commercial property tax on where the employee works? That town provides services too.

Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash

#460

Post by nopzor »

bombcar wrote: post #388
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but paying for a drug habit when drugs are expensive and you have a hard time holding down a 9-5 job (usually due to mental illness) I would imagine mental illness would be a bigger barrier to handling a 9-5 job than drug use. IIUC, the majority of people that drink alcohol and smoke weed daily work 9-5 just fine. Is the same true for the majority of people that have mental illness? What are we even considering men…

Nobody wants to talk about it but we really need to decriminalize hiring druggies . Drug addicts can work quite well in the trades (drywall hangers are famous for being meth-heads in some areas) but once "enforcement" starts cracking down on hiring them, they can't find work.

is it a crime to hire drug addicts? what enforcement are you talking about?
Post reply on HN