Earlier quoted context omitted.
Florida could be a real option vs SF but not with Fascists in charge.
Good grief, is anyone right of center considered "fascist" now?
When you use political power to replace political enemies, what do you call that?
San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash
531–540 of 622 posts
Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash
#532Earlier quoted context omitted.
Linked from the article, the Urban Displacement Project's recovery ranking dashboards [1] place San Francisco dead last amongst 60 major North American cities. [1] https://www.downtownrecovery.com/dashboards/recovery_ranking...
Really interesting that Salt Lake is at the top, and that's the only city I know of that (at least reportedly) had an innovative solution to tackling homelessness. I just tried to search for their solution, but was overwhelmed by links from the past few months talking about how homelessness is swelling in that city. Perhaps every city is just dying of homelessness right now. Makes me wonder if those numbers for downt…
I read some updates about the housing first program you’re talking about a while back. If I recall correctly it fell apart after a year or two and was quietly abandoned. The reasons why aren’t very clearly explained, but the coverage I recall insinuated that the government failed to fund it or build new affordable housing
Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash
#533Earlier quoted context omitted.
My opinion is that the problem with SF isn’t as much housing. It is more with mental health and drug addiction. You do know where many immigrants live right? It isn’t so much on the streets. It is 16 packed into a single apartment. So the mechanisms people talk about already exist. It is that the homeless can’t work because of mental or social issues that compound with drug abuse. You need to fix the mental issues, s…
SROs were a housing solution for low-income people who were not functional[1] enough to live with roommates, but were functional enough to be able to live alone. When we got rid of them, many of their former inhabitants ended up on the street. [1] For an incredibly broad definition of 'not functional'.
I agree. Your Democratic mayors and supervisors did that. They tore down the SOMA SROs and replaced them with tech campuses without a plan of where to house those people. But it is multi-factorial. You have mental health institutions closed down a decade earlier as well. They should have been reformed instead of closed down.
Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash
#534Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you know the transportation agencies were regionally paid for? It wasn't just SF that was paying for BART or CalTrain.
Muni is entirely owned and operated by the city and county of San Francisco and larger than both BART and CalTrain. Muni's got 150 trams, 27 cable cars, a handful of vintage trams, and however many hundred buses. CalTrain has 29 locomotives, BART aims to have 775 cars (around 75 trains).
If you are a visitor/commuter from the burbs, you most likely aren't riding MUNI much except for rare occasions or for short trips. Otherwise you are asking for a ridiculously long commute. They still pay the fare. People tend to drive if the trip is ridiculously long by transit.
Go tell people how much SF residents pay for museums and how much they pay if they are low income. Compare that to people who don't live in SF but are low income.
Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash
#535Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Lots of legal requirements exist to protect someone That someone is often the homeowners [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-...
Paywall, can't read that
There comes a time when one expects that experienced Internet and Web users know the usual workarounds, such as Archive.Is:
https://archive.is/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/...
Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash
#536Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> They don't look at all overdoses, only the overdoses that happen at these sites.
Overdoses that happen at the sites are overdoses that don't happen on the street.
More studies:
- https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/2734/...
- https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2022/0500/p454.html
- https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2015435
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34218964/
More articles:
- https://psmag.com/economics/how-supervised-injection-sites-c...
- [Highly Recommended] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/09/07/6456092...
In fact, I can't find a single study showcasing safe injection sites as a tax payer burden, nor can I find a study showcasing increased overdoses in surrounding areas, nor can I find studies of increased crime.
The only articles against, that I've found are 1. religious/moral arguments; 2. "We need more data", "studies aren't robust enough" 3. NIMBY arguments like this(https://www.heritage.org/public-health/commentary/safe-injec...).
I will even go so far as to say, I understand the NIMBY argument. I don't line the tent cities in Seattle and would rather they were not there. I would even agree with, "don't put these facilities in city centers, put these facilities in isolated remote locations with free transport to and from". Ideally, also colocate shelters, housing first (a debate for another day), and rehab in those remote areas.
That said, the location of these facilities is a reasonable thing to debate, there are pros and cons to putting them in city centers, but please let's end the fallacy that "safe injection sites are a tax payer burden", when all of the data showcases otherwise.
Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash
#537Worked for a company once who boasted surviving the hard times of the dot com bubble by selling their headquarters and renting it back until things got better. Has this happened yet or are owners still holding onto their real estate for own use?
It’s very unusual for companies to own the buildings they have offices in, so this strategy would be non-applicable in most cases.
Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash
#538Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
It'd be even cheaper if they'd quit doing drugs.
Great! Clearly we both agree!
Because the data shows that these facilities actual lead to more people quitting these addictions. Safe injection sites are always (to my knowledge) used as the start of a funnel to educational materials about rehab.
As such long term wins are even better for the tax payer than what I said above. Especially when these people rejoin the workforce.
Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash
#539San Francisco can still make a turnaround and bring things back. But they'd better prioritize crime and homelessness ASAP.
Without a 'broken windows' cleanup a speedy recovery seems unlikely.
Re: San Francisco braces for commercial real estate crash
#540Earlier quoted context omitted.
China has a lot of people living in subbasements ("ant tribe", not just the immediate floor before ground, but the 3rd or 4th floor below ground). No egress, crappy ventilation (mold is a huge problem), but its cheap. Also, a lot of restaurants in Beijing have their staff sleeping out in their dining room after they close up as a form of worker dorms (people also sleep in their shops, which is why they cover the wind…
My opinion is that the problem with SF isn’t as much housing. It is more with mental health and drug addiction. You do know where many immigrants live right? It isn’t so much on the streets. It is 16 packed into a single apartment. So the mechanisms people talk about already exist. It is that the homeless can’t work because of mental or social issues that compound with drug abuse. You need to fix the mental issues, s…
> It is that the homeless can’t work because of mental or social issues that compound with drug abuse.
You mean "chronic homeless." There are homeless that you don't notice because they aren't standing out. They are living in cars or maybe crashing on someone's couch. Let's not equate homelessness with mental illness drug abuse.