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

San Francisco has nearly five empty homes per homeless resident

sf.curbed.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 204 posts

Re: San Francisco has nearly five empty homes per homeless resident

#71

Post by acollins1331 »

macinjosh wrote: post #41
biznickman wrote: post #4

When I lived in San Francisco, the newly built condo building across from me was fully empty (but fully sold) for all the years I lived there. This is a tower in SOMA. There was only one apartment which appeared to be a corporate one that was occasionally utilized. The rise of foreign money parking money in real estate has screwed things up on a global level. San Francisco has felt the brunt of this due to their insa…

> The rise of foreign money parking money in real estate has screwed things up on a global level. If the property tax is paid and the maintenance is kept up what is the problem created solely by the fact some homes are empty? The only reason these properties have such high values is because there is a demand that is not being supplied. Supplying more housing makes this a non-issue. > San Francisco has felt the brunt…

The problem is that the prices are kept artificially high. You say the demand is there... But the homes are empty. That means the demand obviously does not exist.

Re: San Francisco has nearly five empty homes per homeless resident

#72

Post by jetrink »

damnyou wrote: post #50
macinjosh wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The rise of foreign money parking money in real estate has screwed things up on a global level. If the property tax is paid and the maintenance is kept up what is the problem created solely by the fact some homes are empty? The only reason these properties have such high values is because there is a demand that is not being supplied. Supplying more housing makes this a non-issue. > San Francisco has felt the brunt…

If there are homes that are vacant and people that are living on the streets at the same time, that's an inherently unjust situation I think.

If an injustice is one symptom of a deeper problem, is it a good idea to focus on treating the symptom? That approach helps minimize the visibility of the problem while diverting energy (public attention, political capital, financial resources) that could be used in solving the root issue.

Re: San Francisco has nearly five empty homes per homeless resident

#73

Post by compiler-guy »

vonmoltke wrote: post #58
api wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few starter ideas: (1) Repealing prop-13 is probably a non-starter but we could probably get away with repealing it for non-owner-occupied homes. Prop-13 was meant to prevent people from being driven from their homes by property tax increases, not to protect speculators from being taxed. (2) Levy a substantial additional property tax on residential properties that are not currently occupied by either the owner or a…

> (1) Repealing prop-13 is probably a non-starter but we could probably get away with repealing it for non-residents. Prop-13 was meant to prevent people from being driven from their homes by property tax increases, not to protect speculators from being taxed. I have never lived in California, and Prop 13 passed before I was born anyway, so I don't know much about the political backstory. That said, if this was the p…

The corporate protections are unintended consequences of the original proposition. They really weren't on people's radar. (This is why California residents should almost always vote against propositions, even if the idea and goals are good: Fixing the unintended consequences is extremely difficult. It would be better to find other ways to implement the idea.

But getting anyone to fix proposition 13--even in this very limited instance of not protecting corporations anymore--brings out all the apocalyptic messaging (from basically everyone, but especially the corporations) that the old folks who bought in 1970 and have lived their whole lives there will be out on the street when their property taxes go up 10x.

There is no nuance in these messaging battles. And quite frankly, what property owner wants to take any kind of risk with this?

Re: San Francisco has nearly five empty homes per homeless resident

#74

Post by forwhomst »

happytoexplain wrote: post #62
lrajlich wrote: post #35

Counter argument: SF has one of the lowest vacancy rates in the country. https://sf.curbed.com/2019/3/21/18276227/vacancy-rate-san-jo... This article is promoting a bad faith argument used by anti development activists.

I can see why somebody might view that as a counter argument intuitively, but as somebody who cares about the problem in a real, practical sense, it's immediately obvious to me that the point isn't to criticise the city's vacancy rate in a void, but to compare it to the potential waste. In a city where prices are disgustingly high and homelessness is appallingly common, the vacancy rate becomes much more sensitive to…

It's basically impossible to increase housing utilization to 100%. It's pointless to even try. 10% is a healthy vacancy rate. Build 110% of the housing your city needs.

Re: San Francisco has nearly five empty homes per homeless resident

#75

Post by 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 »

Is this comparison (homeless vs vacancy) a headline thing or is there actually a healthy metric to compare the two? Isn't the number much higher in places with less homeless, such as Oklahoma City?

"Healthy" vacancy rates (according to citylab) are approximately 7-8% (people moving in, people moving out, remodeling, etc). With SF's vacancy rate at 6%[2], shouldn't the vacancy rate be higher?

1. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/07/vacancy-americas-othe... 2. https://www.statista.com/statistics/430104/office-vacancy-ra...

Re: San Francisco has nearly five empty homes per homeless resident

#76

Post by Psyladine »

gradys wrote: post #7

> The census’ annual American Communities Survey defines a home as vacant if there is either no occupant or a temporary occupant—temporary meaning “people who will be there for two months or less.” So this is counting AirBnBs and other short-term rental spaces as vacant. > Vacancy rates are estimated by in-person visits to properties or by interviews via mail, email, or phone. I clicked through to the definition from…

>So this is counting AirBnBs and other short-term rental spaces as vacant.

by definition tourist or transient, so correctly so. Unless you want to call every room at the hilton an apartment...

Re: San Francisco has nearly five empty homes per homeless resident

#77

Post by sidlls »

davidw wrote: post #26
damnyou wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should different rules apply to foreigners in this context? An American billionaire buying a few condos and keeping them empty has the exact same effect as a Chinese billionaire doing so. Rules around vacant homes are good, though, and I strongly support them.

Everyone gets to feel good if they can blame "the wealthy foreigners" rather than look at their own crappy housing policies, such as the rampant NIMBYism and huge market distortion from Prop 13. Faceless "wealthy foreigners" are easier to dislike than their own neighbors who show up at planning commission meetings to rant about someone adding an extra bedroom to their home (this is an actual thing I read about in San…

Where I live "wealthy homeowners" are the NIMBYs. They suddenly appear out of nowhere to argue in city council meetings against more housing, then leave their homes empty more than half the year (or all year). That most of them are also foreign is incidental: it'd be just as bad if it were Americans doing this.

Re: San Francisco has nearly five empty homes per homeless resident

#78

Post by earlINmeyerkeg »

flaque wrote: post #45

Many of these homes probably aren’t “empty” in the sense that someone’s just holding on to them long term. This article is citing the vacancy rate, which includes rentals where someone left and the landlord is trying to find a new tenant. Any city will have some % of empty rentals, if it didn’t, no one would ever move around. According to the US Census, [1] San Francisco’s vacancy rate is 5.4%, New York’s is 4.5%, an…

Isn't like 90% of the homeless population people with a significant mental illness that they cannot provide for themselves? That's because the normal competent people don't remain homeless long and just need short term temporary assistant. Whereas the large portion of homeless actually are not competent enough to support themselves.

Re: San Francisco has nearly five empty homes per homeless resident

#79

Post by ryanSrich »

martin_bech wrote: post #27

In Denmark this would be impossible as we have “bopælspligt”. It means if you buy a home or apartment in an area like this, you are required by law to live in it.

There are several condo buildings in Portland (OR, US) that do this as well. I don't think it's city or government regulated, but it's required by certain buildings. I don't know if SF has anything like this, but I imagine it's easy to get around it.

Re: San Francisco has nearly five empty homes per homeless resident

#80

Post by GrayTextIsTruth »

damnyou wrote: post #34
GrayTextIsTruth wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a lot of money in real estate. It’s better staying in the country than going to Chinese firms. If it makes no difference to you, why not favor your own country?

Because I am a committed internationalist and believe that national borders are the greatest moral atrocity that exists today.

Thinking nationalism is about borders and not about loving your own people. We have a limited amount of love and attention to spread. Focusing that energy externally rather than internally causes neglect on your own people, like the homeless in the US. It’s like choosing where to put your skill points at the beginning of an RPG.

Even acting like it’s morally superior when it’s just an inefficient form of welfare. It’s a bunch of feel good.

I say “national” but I don’t really care about Florida or NY way over here in California.

Post reply on HN