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

San Francisco faces fiscal chaos

wolfstreet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 67 posts

Re: San Francisco faces fiscal chaos

#51

Post by vdnkh »

programmertote wrote: post #34
Wolfenstein98k wrote: post #5

San Fran is a bizarre place. I'm an Aussie, an Americanophile, and I was in the States for months last year. San Fran was simply unpleasant - the people were rude (young and old) and everything cost too much. The taxes were insane too. I couldn't bear to live there - Salt Lake City seemed to have the most similar upsides with next to none of the downsides.

> San Fran was simply unpleasant - the people were rude (young and old) and everything cost too much. The taxes were insane too. Tangential, but I feel the same way about NYC. I have lived in SF for ~3 years and have now been in NYC for ~4 years. I guess cities, that are HCOL, tend to exacerbate the (low and high income) class disparities, and maybe also heighten residents' stress and reduce their patience levels?

Are you a west coast native? As a new yorker (and nj native), I've found that west coasters often think we're rude but I see it as just our communication style. We often interrupt and speak over each other, and really don't like being interrupted on a commute (which is often just walking somewhere).

Since working more with west coast devs, I've learned to be "nicer" when communicating. But still have the same habits with my family. To be fair I think that some these habits are good to break.

Re: San Francisco faces fiscal chaos

#52

Post by thorwasdfasdf »

dzlobin wrote: post #7
diogenescynic wrote: post #2

I think a more accurate description would be that San Francisco chooses chaos. I've never lived anywhere more unreasonably governed. It's like the government is actively sabotaging quality of life and squandering its budget. One example--the city spent $15.5m to tear down a McDonalds in the Haight and turn it into a homeless tent camp.

While I don’t disagree that SF is a mess, your example is completely wrong. That lot will become low-income housing and is temporarily being used as that. https://sfmohcd.org/730-stanyan

but his point about SF funds being squandered, definately has a lot of truth to it. There are a lot of ways to build high density housing in a cost effective manner that are not being used. The city constantly fights against anyone that tries to build any kind of cost effective housing. I've talked to SF residents (even the very people who work in Nonprofits that supposedly help the homeless), and they'll make any excuse they can against building any kind of cost effective housing: i really don't get it.

Re: San Francisco faces fiscal chaos

#53

Post by mint2 »

diogenescynic wrote: post #28
m0llusk wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SF problems come from its people and wild economic and cultural swings. Government would love to have more influence, but it really doesn't. The McDonalds you refer to was a huge problem for a long time and right now the only argument is about exactly how big an apartment building to put there.

I think saying SF problems are due to "cultural swings" is borderline veiled racism. Sounds like something Hillary would say for sure. No, SF problems come from incompetence. No other city in the country spends as much per citizen and gets as poor results. Quality of life stinks here for the cost. And no, you're erasing the voices of many locals who don't want more tent camps in residential areas when there are other…

I’m not sure how you get race from “cultural swing” in the context of SF Bay Area. The latest cultural swing is to techies with high salaries leading to gentrification, housing disparities, google bus protests.

Re: San Francisco faces fiscal chaos

#54

Post by cobookman »

mc32 wrote: post #50
eanzenberg wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prop 13 is just homeowner fiscal responsibility. Repeal it and watch as existing homeowners are forced out of their homes onto God knows where, for factors out of their control, and in the hands of government officials who decide how much something is worth. Also, I’m not sure how many funds this would ultimately raise. Houses will flood the market as existing homeowners can’t afford their taxes, putting downward pre…

You could apply it to new sales —grandfather current owners to minimize that effect.

You just made buying a home that much more expensive. You think California's elected officials will keep property tax to 1% of assessed home value?

It'd be a double whammy, re-assesment to higher home values coupled with a larger % of home value being taxed.

I'd rather say starting today homes are re-assesed every 25 years to market value, or something of the sort.

Re: San Francisco faces fiscal chaos

#55

Post by 0xffff2 »

mc32 wrote: post #50
eanzenberg wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prop 13 is just homeowner fiscal responsibility. Repeal it and watch as existing homeowners are forced out of their homes onto God knows where, for factors out of their control, and in the hands of government officials who decide how much something is worth. Also, I’m not sure how many funds this would ultimately raise. Houses will flood the market as existing homeowners can’t afford their taxes, putting downward pre…

You could apply it to new sales —grandfather current owners to minimize that effect.

Isn't that what prop 13 already is? Nominally property taxes reset to market rate at each sale. (Nominally because there are loopholes you could drive a big rig carrying a Falcon 9 through.)

Re: San Francisco faces fiscal chaos

#56

Post by thorwasdfasdf »

m0llusk wrote: post #15
diogenescynic wrote: post #2

I think a more accurate description would be that San Francisco chooses chaos. I've never lived anywhere more unreasonably governed. It's like the government is actively sabotaging quality of life and squandering its budget. One example--the city spent $15.5m to tear down a McDonalds in the Haight and turn it into a homeless tent camp.

SF problems come from its people and wild economic and cultural swings. Government would love to have more influence, but it really doesn't. The McDonalds you refer to was a huge problem for a long time and right now the only argument is about exactly how big an apartment building to put there.

The government is what tells where and what things can be built. As, as long as that's the case, then gov is almost 100% responsible for this mess. Sure, the geography of SF is limiting.

Look at cities that let people build where there is need to build, they don't have the kind of housing problems SF does.

SF is wealth deprived (wealth is not money, wealth is your ability to Shelter/food/water/necessities etc). It has so much money and yet, 100K income isn't near enough for a family to live there. The homeless rate is nearly 2%! The bottom 20% is at risk of being homeless. The other 70% can barely afford to make rent.

Compare this to Houston, a city that allows things to be built when it needs to be built. Homeless rate is just 0.2%. The bottom 20% is able to afford to live there and so is everyone else. Look people, there's nothing about hot weather that makes it easier to build buildings. It's the attitude of the people. People in SF need to seriously learn something about supply and demand, and the nature housing.

And, let's keep in mind, Houstons yearly growth rate is much faster than SF, it has added over x4 more people to its city per year than SF! and still is able to handle all that, whilst creating a ton of jobs in the process.

Re: San Francisco faces fiscal chaos

#57

Post by kurthr »

mylons wrote: post #33
mc32 wrote: post #21

CA has always been about boom and busts. Governor Brown knew this and kept a tight fist on the purse strings... to the chagrin and annoyance of the “we’re rich, let’s spend” crowd. If it were not for his fiscal conservatism it’s be even worse. Of course SF is the poster child for spending copious amounts of money on pet projects while ignoring the big issues.

CA’s booms and busts now, for the state and city governments, is almost purely centered around Prop 13. The NIMBYs won. Unless you have owned a home for decades and have insanely low property taxes it’s extremely hard to weather these cycles. NIMBYs gain from the booms, and relax during the busts. And as a result of Prop 13 the state relies heavily on income taxes, when people leave or lose their jobs there goes the…

I agree there is a cyclical taxation problem, especially since most of those store fronts are rented. High rents are only part of the problem with Prop13... which is that property owners don't care if their land is profitable or even occupied. In some cases that means a little mom&pop store (or a farm) stays open for a lifetime, but in many others it means that a giant mall is shuttered for decades in the middle of relatively vibrant economy in a sub-urban neighborhood. The owners see enough appreciation in value they see no reason to rent or even maintain it. Eventually homeless move in, because "housing costs are too high", and often there is fire damage. The use of prop13 by multi-generational trusts and perpetual tax avoidance by sale of company rather than transfer of title has led to significant blight in an economic boom lasting decades.

The solution to affordablity of property taxes could have been limited to humans (not trusts or corporations) with deferred taxes (lien) until probate. Instead, it will likely be with local municipalities fining ever larger amounts for unoccupied/rented properties based on market value (rather than assessed). Of course the risk that you would need to pay even 0.5%/yr to keep property would drive prices down, which would encourage people to sell or at least rent.

Re: San Francisco faces fiscal chaos

#58

Post by ashtonkem »

eanzenberg wrote: post #42
mylons wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CA’s booms and busts now, for the state and city governments, is almost purely centered around Prop 13. The NIMBYs won. Unless you have owned a home for decades and have insanely low property taxes it’s extremely hard to weather these cycles. NIMBYs gain from the booms, and relax during the busts. And as a result of Prop 13 the state relies heavily on income taxes, when people leave or lose their jobs there goes the…

Prop 13 is just homeowner fiscal responsibility. Repeal it and watch as existing homeowners are forced out of their homes onto God knows where, for factors out of their control, and in the hands of government officials who decide how much something is worth. Also, I’m not sure how many funds this would ultimately raise. Houses will flood the market as existing homeowners can’t afford their taxes, putting downward pre…

You don’t know what prop 13 does.

How is children and grand children inheriting their parents property tax rates “fiscal responsibility”?

Re: San Francisco faces fiscal chaos

#59

Post by ashtonkem »

0xffff2 wrote: post #55
mc32 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could apply it to new sales —grandfather current owners to minimize that effect.

Isn't that what prop 13 already is? Nominally property taxes reset to market rate at each sale. (Nominally because there are loopholes you could drive a big rig carrying a Falcon 9 through.)

One of the loopholes has been transfers to children and grandchildren. There are residents in our town who pay 1970s property tax rates just because of who their parents or grandparents are. It’s a perversion of the nominal American dream.

Re: San Francisco faces fiscal chaos

#60

Post by ashtonkem »

aphextron wrote: post #37
Wolfenstein98k wrote: post #5

San Fran is a bizarre place. I'm an Aussie, an Americanophile, and I was in the States for months last year. San Fran was simply unpleasant - the people were rude (young and old) and everything cost too much. The taxes were insane too. I couldn't bear to live there - Salt Lake City seemed to have the most similar upsides with next to none of the downsides.

>"I couldn't bear to live there - Salt Lake City seemed to have the most similar upsides with next to none of the downsides." SLC seems nice in theory, until you realize Utah is a theocracy. Not a great place to live for anyone outside the LDS church.

That’s changing rapidly.
Post reply on HN